The vote carries with 3 binding +1 and 3 non-binding +1
Thanks everyone
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:12 AM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
>
> +1
>
> In
> "[VOTE] Formalizing "Extension Type" metadata in Arrow binary protocol" on
> Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:28:22 -0500,
&
+1
In
"[VOTE] Formalizing "Extension Type" metadata in Arrow binary protocol" on
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:28:22 -0500,
Wes McKinney wrote:
> hi folks,
>
> In two mailing list threads [1] [2] we have discussed adding an
> "extension type" mechanism
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 1:29 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
> hi folks,
>
> In two mailing list threads [1] [2] we have discussed adding an
> "extension type" mechanism to the Arrow binary/IPC protocol. The idea
> is to be able to "annotate" built-in Arrow data types with a type name
>
+1
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:24 PM Micah Kornfield
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:08 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> >
> > Le 10/06/2019 à 22:28, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> > >
> > > Please vote to accept these changes (see [3] for the actual changes).
> > > The vote will
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:08 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Le 10/06/2019 à 22:28, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> >
> > Please vote to accept these changes (see [3] for the actual changes).
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours
> >
> > [ ] +1: Adopt these changes into the
Le 10/06/2019 à 22:28, Wes McKinney a écrit :
>
> Please vote to accept these changes (see [3] for the actual changes).
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours
>
> [ ] +1: Adopt these changes into the Arrow columnar format specification
> [ ] +0: . . .
> [ ] -1: I disagree because . . .
hi folks,
In two mailing list threads [1] [2] we have discussed adding an
"extension type" mechanism to the Arrow binary/IPC protocol. The idea
is to be able to "annotate" built-in Arrow data types with a type name
and serialized type data/metadata so that users can implement their
own custom
