What are the benefits of a parquet implementation being part of Apache Parquet vs another Apache project vs something else entirely? Being part of Apache org? Branding? Voting rights? If motivations are clear, solutions might be more readily apparent.
Rok On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 2:36 PM Raphael Taylor-Davies <r.taylordav...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > I'm curious where the other arrow parquet implementations fit into this, > if at all? For context, the original Rust implementation was largely the > work of Chao Sun, who I believe to be a parquet PMC member, but it was > then donated to the arrow project, and has primarily been developed and > maintained by individuals affiliated with the arrow project since then, > myself included. I'm not suggesting all parquet implementations > necessarily need to be governed by the parquet PMC, but perhaps what > ever compromise we devise for parquet-cpp might equally be applied to > the other parquet projects that fall under the arrow umbrella? > > Kind Regards, > > Raphael > > On 16/05/2024 13:26, Uwe L. Korn wrote: > > I would actually consider someone who contributes to both communities at > the same time to be a worthwhile addition to both projects. In my active > years, we have mostly voted people into both projects; the order was not > clear, though. > > > > Being a committer/PMC means that you want to bring the community around > a project forward in the Apache way (with parquet-cpp this is given as it > is part of the parquet community and also still in a project that is > residing within the Apache org). > > > >> he told me that the contribution to > >> parquet-cpp is no longer considered when promoting committers to > >> Apache Parquet PMC. > > As a Parquet PMC, I would strongly object to that and would be > supportive of also making them a Parquet committer/PMC. > > > > Best > > Uwe > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2024, at 2:19 PM, Gang Wu wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I share the same feeling with Antoine that parquet-cpp seems to be fully > >> governed by Apache Arrow PMC, not the Apache Parquet PMC. I have > >> once discussed this with Xinli and he told me that the contribution to > >> parquet-cpp is no longer considered when promoting committers to > >> Apache Parquet PMC. > >> > >> Best, > >> Gang > >> > >> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 4:29 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> > wrote: > >> > >>> 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 > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >
