I'm sorry I've had less time to dedicate to this then I inspect. Gang do you have bandwidth to work on it? I can help review. Otherwise, will see if I can make time this month.
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 10:53 AM Xinli shang <sha...@uber.com.invalid> wrote: > Thank Gang for taking the lead on this! I agree we should have a new > release. In addition to PARQUET-2261, there was also a discussion in Feb > with PMCs for PARQUET-758. We may want to check for the plan with Antoine > Pitrou <https://github.com/pitrou> if PARQUET-758 wants to be in also. > > > > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 9:51 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > BTW, I'd like to see the implementation from Micah to fully > > > understand the use case. If he is too busy to do that, I can do it > based > > on > > > my understanding. > > > > > > I can allocate some time to try to make a PoC in C++ next month if we are > > willing to wait until then. > > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 5:04 AM Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I think we can wait for a complete PoC implementation of PARQUET-2261 > > > before release. BTW, I'd like to see the implementation from Micah to > > fully > > > understand the use case. If he is too busy to do that, I can do it > based > > on > > > my understanding. > > > > > > Best, > > > Gang > > > > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:34 PM Gábor Szádovszky <ga...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for volunteering, Gang! > > > > > > > > However it is more than 2 years indeed since the last release I think > > the > > > > actual changes since then are more important. There are lots of > > > > additions/corrections in the spec docs and the thrift file comments > > which > > > > are very important but not tightly attached to a format release. I > only > > > can > > > > see PARQUET-2257 that contains an actual change in the thrift > > structure. > > > > > > > > Related to the ongoing effort of PARQUET-2261: I think, we are > waiting > > > for > > > > a PoC implementation. @emkornfield: Do you plan to work on this? > > > > > > > > The question is if we think PARQUET-2257 is urgent enough to not to > > wait > > > > for PARQUET-2261 and have an additional release after the latter is > > ready > > > > or we shall wait for the PoC implementation and release format after > > it. > > > > > > > > On 2023/05/02 03:33:05 Gang Wu wrote: > > > > > Thanks Fokko! > > > > > > > > > > Let us just wait for more inputs to see if it is good to proceed. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Gang > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 4:05 PM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Gang, > > > > > > > > > > > > Great bringing this up, I think that would be a great idea! > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Fokko > > > > > > > > > > > > Op do 27 apr 2023 om 09:52 schreef Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The latest parquet format is v2.9.0 [1] which was released two > > > years > > > > ago. > > > > > > > Is it a good time to release the next version? If there is no > > > > objection, > > > > > > I > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > volunteer to be the release manager. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/CHANGES.md > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Gang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Xinli Shang >
