Hello all, I am catching up as I'm back from my trip. I'm glad this is making progress. I am generally in favor of this versioning scheme for Parquet. So that's a +1 from me here. I also agree that we need a mechanism to clarify the details, so I have started a doc where I *think* I have incorporated people's feedback from the threads. Parquet Versioning proposal <https://docs.google.com/document/d/19bOTy1WcLs9NP88DrysG4wG50pM6gmIFaSEWzkxUeJw/edit> I think this will be a good mechanism to finalize the details and clarify the goals so please comment on it. I also think that we need to keep the discussion focused on the minimal definition of this to make incremental progress faster (I appreciate the concise 3-bullet definition provided by Ryan for this vote!). To that point I have put certain things in the doc in "Additional considerations" which I think we can finalize later after we agree on the underlying versioning. Julien
On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 12:40 PM Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 09/07/2026 à 20:39, Ryan Blue a écrit : > > Antoine, please help me keep questions on the Q&A thread. > > > > With about a 2-week gap in the discussion thread, no serious concerns at > > the last sync, and changes blocked on this decision, it is time for a > bias > > toward action. > > Can you expand on which changes are blocked on this? We can continue > release Parquet format versions as usual while we discuss a new > versioning scheme. This is not blocking any new encoding or logical type. > > > If nothing else, I'm glad that this thread is resulting in more serious > > consideration and questions. > > Indeed, but then we agree this is not ready for a vote, right? > > Regards > > Antoine. > > >
