On Thu, 16 May 2024 10:08:42 +0200 "Uwe L. Korn" <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2024, at 6:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > AFAIK, the only Parquet implementation under the Apache Parquet project > > is parquet-mr :-) > > This is not true. The parquet-cpp that resides in the arrow repository is > still controlled by the Apache Parquet PMC. Back then, we only merged the > codebases but kept control of it with the Apache Parquet project. I know, it > is hard to understand, but at least I have never seen a vote that would move > it out of the Apache Parquet's project "control".
Ahah. Unfortunately, this doesn't match actual community practices. For example, when it is decided to give (Arrow) commit rights to a frequent Parquet C++ contributor, that decision is made among the Arrow PMC, not the Parquet PMC. Perhaps there would be value in aligning the legal situation on the _de facto_ situation? Regards Antoine. > > Best > Uwe > > > > > > On Tue, 14 May 2024 10:58:58 +0200 > > Rok Mihevc <rok.mih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Second Raphael's point. > >> Would it be reasonable to say specification change requires implementation > >> in two parquet implementations within Apache Parquet project? > >> > >> Rok > >> > >> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:50 AM Gang Wu > >> <ustcwg-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> > >> > IMHO, it looks more reasonable if a reference implementation is required > >> > to support most (not all) elements from the specification. > >> > > >> > Another question is: should we discuss (and vote for) each candidate > >> > one by one? We can start with parquet-mr which is most well-known > >> > implementation. > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > Gang > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 4:41 PM Raphael Taylor-Davies > >> > <r.taylordav...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Potentially it would be helpful to flip the question around. As Andrew > >> > > articulates, a reference implementation is required to implement all > >> > > elements from the specification, and therefore the major consequence of > >> > > labeling parquet-mr thusly would be that any specification change would > >> > > have to be implemented within parquet-mr as part of the standardisation > >> > > process. It would be insufficient for it to be implemented in, for > >> > > example, two of the parquet implementations maintained by the arrow > >> > > project. I personally think that would be a shame and likely exclude > >> > > many people who would otherwise be interested in evolving the parquet > >> > > specification, but think that is at the core of this question. > >> > > > >> > > Kind Regards, > >> > > > >> > > Raphael > >> > > > >> > > On 13/05/2024 20:55, Andrew Lamb wrote: > >> > > > Question: Should we label parquet-mr or any other parquet > >> > implementations > >> > > > "reference" implications"? > >> > > > > >> > > > This came up as part of Vinoo's great PR to list different parquet > >> > > > reference implementations[1][2]. > >> > > > > >> > > > The term "reference implementation" often has an official > >> > > > connotation. > >> > > For > >> > > > example the wikipedia definition is "a program that implements all > >> > > > requirements from a corresponding specification. The reference > >> > > > implementation ... should be considered the "correct" behavior of > >> > > > any > >> > > other > >> > > > implementation of it."[3] > >> > > > > >> > > > Given the close association of parquet-mr to the parquet standard, > >> > > > it > >> > is > >> > > a > >> > > > natural candidate to label as "reference implementation." However, > >> > > > it > >> > is > >> > > > not clear to me if there is consensus that it should be thusly > >> > > > labeled. > >> > > > > >> > > > I have a strong opinion that a consensus on this question would be > >> > > > very > >> > > > helpful. I don't actually have a strong opinion about the answer > >> > > > > >> > > > Andrew > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > [1]: > >> > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/53#discussion_r1582882267 > >> > > > >> > > > [2]: > >> > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/53#discussion_r1598283465 > >> > > > >> > > > [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_implementation > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
