+1 While I share the concern that it is non trivial to understand the rollout status of various features across the Parquet Ecosystem, I don't think this particular change is any better/worse than existing features such as modular encryption, so gating it on getting such a consensus seems unfair to me
I personally think the best thing we can do to help the ecosystem adopt features is continuing to refine our existing matrix of file format implementation status [1] Andrew [1]: https://parquet.apache.org/docs/file-format/implementationstatus/#read-support-by-year On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 6:03 PM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: > -0 (though on the fence here). > > I'm a little concerned that we're starting to play very loose with spec > with a change like this. Some of the justification seems to be that it's > already supported in some projects and some readers don't break by making > this change. > > I see we've added the comment: > > > Writers are encouraged to make the writing of > > * this field optional, but for maximal compatibility should default to > > * writing the field until at least September 2028. > > > But practically we don't really intend to wait until 2028 and we're just > going to start doing this immediately. > > -Dan > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 7:12 AM Ed Seidl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Correction: the link to the PR is > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/564 > > > > Ed > > > > On 2026/06/01 14:07:18 Ed Seidl wrote: > > > I would like to propose a vote on adopting the format change described > in > > > GH-563: Make ColumnMetaData.path_in_schema optional. > > > > > > This was proposed on the mailing list [1] and in GitHub issue #563 [2]. > > > > > > The proposed format specification changes are available in the PR: > > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/issues/563 > > > > > > To verify this design's compatibility and correctness, three PoC > > implementations > > > were developed: > > > 1. Java: https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/3470 > > > 2. C++: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49707 > > > 3. Rust: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/9678 > > > > > > All three PoCs have been verified against a test file produced by the > > Rust PoC: > > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing/pull/108 > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > [ ] +1 Approve the proposed format change > > > [ ] +0 No opinion > > > [ ] -1 Do not approve (please provide specific reasons) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ed Seidl > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/900503q07v95vyh6fk3qfn7ynb4w6yn2 > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/issues/563 > > > > > > > > >
