+1 (nonbinding) For me at least this is a pretty clear path forwards, new versions exist in flux until the community closes them. Ie v3 doesn’t exist even if you are writing v3 features until there is a community vote. The library implementation could be done a few different ways but I think the Iceberg method is the simplest, a writer chooses a version and the code internally will write to that version. Multiple versions exist in the code at the same time so no need to branch or whatnot.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 1:21 AM Micah Kornfield <[email protected]> wrote: > -1. I'm not actually sure what the practical outcome of this vote means. > I agree from a feature grouping perspective using the parquet format > version release makes sense. I don't agree it should be a single number > (this doesn't account for forward compatible changes that a writer might > not want to enable immediately, e.g. new sort orders). > > A way of addressing this Ryan is if you could you post a PR modifying > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md to > what the actual change in process is, so we can vote on that? > > Open questions in my mind are: > * Will the community vote be separate from a major/minor release of the > format? > * Are we going to maintain two branches of the format or something else? > * Are we going to block breaking changes from being merged and delay major > release of the format? > * What are the criteria for closing a major format version? > > If some of these fall in later parts of the conversation, then they don't > need to be included in the PR. > > Thanks, > Micah > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 4:53 PM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > This is a vote to conclude the discussion about the future of Parquet > > versioning. We’ve reached the end of that discussion thread and there is > a > > clear preference in the community for using increasing version numbers to > > release forward-incompatible changes. > > > > This vote is to confirm the choice to use version numbers. Specifically, > > > > - We will accumulate forward-incompatible changes targeted at the next > > major version of the Parquet spec (3, 4, etc.) > > - New forward-incompatible changes will automatically go into the next > > major version > > - We will have a community vote to close and adopt each major version > > > > If you’re familiar with Iceberg, this is what we’ve referred to as the > > “Iceberg model” (although we inherited it from Parquet). > > > > Please vote in the next 72 hours: > > > > [ ] +1: Adopt versions for forward-incompatible changes > > [ ] +0: Not going to block, but prefer . . . > > [ ] -1: Do not adopt versions for forward-incompatible changes because . > . > > . > > > > Glad to see this moving forward! > > > > Ryan > > >
