Thanks Micah. I was hesitating to -1 as well, because the proposal leaves some critical elements undefined (though thanks for doing it!).
I'm also not sure about the messaging as, given our current policy, people may expect "Parquet 3" to be an entirely incompatible rearchitecture of the format, not just new optional encodings.
Regards Antoine. Le 07/07/2026 à 07:20, Micah Kornfield a écrit :
-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
