Thank you Micah for your patience. I have reviewed the PR and it looks good to me. Did you want to add a sentence about Logical Types per Antoine's comment?
you can add my +1 to this vote. Side comment: Although I don't think we necessarily need a formal vote on this particular release guidance update, it also didn't hurt to have one. In a lot of cases we can rely on converging on +1s on the PR and have a discussion thread. (my intent here is to suggest that as a practice we use votes parsimoniously only when we really need one) Julien On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 1:30 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > Julien and I talked offline and I made some updates based on the > conversation (I don't believe anything substantive, but there is more > balanced language on encouraging people who can to adopt features sooner > without any specific timelines attached). > > Thanks, > Micah > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 9:56 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > For example, there is still discussion about enabling > >> new forward incompatible features by default and the role of major > >> releases regarding that. > > > > Hi Julien, > > > > As written the specification does not require a major version release, > > this is a suggestion for implementations to advertise possible > > compatibility issues. > > > > Are there more points to discuss? Maybe we can pause this vote and try > to > > discuss it on the mailing list first. Given the wide range of input from > > people across multiple time-zones, I'm not sure we will easily come to a > > consensus without a discussion here anyways. > > > > I think everyone that had concerns about some of the more controversial > > points has already voted for adoption. The one significant topic that > has > > come up since votes, is whether new logical types that are considered > > forward compatible are not (as a strawman I put in that they should be > > considered forward compatible, but maybe we can punt on this and add a > > follow-up). > > > > Concretely, if there is current content that you strongly object to, I'd > > prefer to remove it (or change from a required to suggestion) so we can > get > > something merged and have another round of conversations to refine as > there > > is already a lot of content in the PRs. > > > > Thanks, > > Micah > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 3:23 PM Julien Le Dem <jul...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Hello all. > >> I have finally done a proper review on this great proposal by Micah. > >> I have not been too available last month as I was half on vacation and > >> half > >> travelling for work. > >> I am now back home and have more time. > >> > >> I do think that there are a few points we need to discuss to get to a > >> crisper consensus on. For example, there is still discussion about > >> enabling > >> new forward incompatible features by default and the role of major > >> releases regarding that. > >> I think once we finalize that, we can merge it. > >> My opinion is we should take advantage of the parquet sync to speed up > >> converging. I'll follow up on the other thread to set it up. > >> > >> There is a discussion of having more frequent intermediary releases. I > >> think there is consensus on that and we don't need to wait for this PR > to > >> be finished to act on it. > >> > >> Micah, thanks again for your effort and contribution. Does that sound > like > >> a reasonable next step to you? > >> Best > >> Julien > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:53 AM Julien Le Dem <jul...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> > FYI, I am working on commenting on the PR and should be able to finish > >> > today (PT). > >> > Overall I think this is good and I am making suggestions along the > way. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 10:50 PM Julien Le Dem <jul...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I started looking today but haven’t had time to finish. > >> >> Let me get back to y’all soon. > >> >> Best > >> >> Julien > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 13:06 Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> It looks like we only have 2 +1 votes from PMC members so far. I > >> would > >> >>> appreciate it if another PMC member could review and cast a vote? > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks, > >> >>> Micah > >> >>> > >> >>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 7:37 AM Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> > +1 (binding) > >> >>> > > >> >>> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024, at 7:59 PM, Edward Seidl wrote: > >> >>> > > +1 (non-binding) > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > Thanks Micah! > >> >>> > > Ed > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > From: Vinoo Ganesh <vinoo.gan...@gmail.com> > >> >>> > > Date: Thursday, July 4, 2024 at 6:19 AM > >> >>> > > To: dev@parquet.apache.org <dev@parquet.apache.org> > >> >>> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Adopt proposal on new features for > >> parquet-format > >> >>> > > and release for Parquet Java > >> >>> > > +1 (non-binding) > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > Thank you Micah for all of your work on this! > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > <vinoo.gan...@gmail.com> > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 5:28 AM Andrew Lamb < > >> andrewlam...@gmail.com> > >> >>> > wrote: > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > >> +1 (non binding) > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> Thank you Micah for all the effort you have put into gathering > >> >>> feedback > >> >>> > and > >> >>> > >> building consensus > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> Andrew > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 2:48 AM Alkis Evlogimenos > >> >>> > >> <alkis.evlogime...@databricks.com.invalid> wrote: > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> > +1 this is great, it puts a lot of clarity in the process. > >> >>> > >> > > >> >>> > >> > > >> >>> > >> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 4:26 AM Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> > > >> >>> > >> > > Generally +1 on the proposal. Thanks for finalizing it! > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> > > I have left a comment regarding the next major release of > >> >>> > parquet-java. > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> > > Best, > >> >>> > >> > > Gang > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 1:55 AM Micah Kornfield < > >> >>> > emkornfi...@gmail.com> > >> >>> > >> > > wrote: > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> > > > This vote is whether to adopt and merge [1][2] a proposal > >> for > >> >>> > >> providing > >> >>> > >> > > > formal guidance on new features are added to the Parquet > >> >>> format, > >> >>> > >> > > > recommendations on when incompatible features should be > >> >>> turned on > >> >>> > in > >> >>> > >> > > > implementations by default and a proposed release cadence > >> for > >> >>> > >> > > Parquet-java. > >> >>> > >> > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > This was first published for discussion on the dev > mailing > >> >>> list on > >> >>> > >> [3]. > >> >>> > >> > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > Given we are headed into a holiday weekend in the US the > >> vote > >> >>> will > >> >>> > >> > remain > >> >>> > >> > > > open for until at least Wednesday, July 10th to ensure > >> >>> adequate > >> >>> > time > >> >>> > >> > for > >> >>> > >> > > > people who might be taking time away from their computer. > >> >>> > >> > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > Thanks, > >> >>> > >> > > > Micah > >> >>> > >> > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > [ ] +1 Adopt the guidance in the PR proposals and merge > >> them. > >> >>> > >> > > > [ ] +0 > >> >>> > >> > > > [ ] -1 Do not adopt the guidance because .... > >> >>> > >> > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/258 > >> >>> > >> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/61/files > >> >>> > >> > > > [3] > >> >>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/bcc13dtdvnxvg55nhyowbwzqomfljgvb > >> >>> > >> > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > >> >>> > >> > > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >
