Hi folks,
This issue is probably the one true "blocker" for the 1.0.0 release.
Ideally, all libraries should emit V5 MetadataVersion by default. How
V4 handled depends on the willingness to implement compatibility code:
* Since V4 is backwards compatible with V5 (except for unions),
libraries
The vote carries with 6 binding +1 votes and 2 non-binding +1
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:03 PM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> In
> "[VOTE] Increment MetadataVersion in Schema.fbs from V4 to V5 for 1.0.0
> release" on Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:42:45 -0500,
> Wes McKinney wrote:
>
> >
+1 (binding)
In
"[VOTE] Increment MetadataVersion in Schema.fbs from V4 to V5 for 1.0.0
release" on Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:42:45 -0500,
Wes McKinney wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed on the mailing list [1], in order to demarcate the
> pre-1.0.0 and post-1.0.0 worlds, and to allow the
>
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:53 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
>
> Le 29/06/2020 à 23:42, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > As discussed on the mailing list [1], in order to demarcate the
> > pre-1.0.0 and post-1.0.0 worlds, and to allow the
> >
+1 (binding)
Le 29/06/2020 à 23:42, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> As discussed on the mailing list [1], in order to demarcate the
> pre-1.0.0 and post-1.0.0 worlds, and to allow the
> forward-compatibility-protection changes we are making to actually
> work (i.e. so that libraries can
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, at 11:11 AM, Neville Dipale wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 06:29, Ben Kietzman wrote:
>
> > +1 (non binding)
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 00:25 Wes McKinney wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:49 PM
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 06:29, Ben Kietzman wrote:
> +1 (non binding)
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 00:25 Wes McKinney wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:49 PM Micah Kornfield
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:43 PM
+1 (non binding)
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 00:25 Wes McKinney wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:49 PM Micah Kornfield
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:43 PM Wes McKinney
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As discussed on the mailing list [1], in
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:49 PM Micah Kornfield wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:43 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As discussed on the mailing list [1], in order to demarcate the
> > pre-1.0.0 and post-1.0.0 worlds, and to allow the
> >
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:43 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed on the mailing list [1], in order to demarcate the
> pre-1.0.0 and post-1.0.0 worlds, and to allow the
> forward-compatibility-protection changes we are making to actually
> work (i.e. so that libraries can
Hi,
As discussed on the mailing list [1], in order to demarcate the
pre-1.0.0 and post-1.0.0 worlds, and to allow the
forward-compatibility-protection changes we are making to actually
work (i.e. so that libraries can recognize that they have received
data with a feature that they do not
11 matches
Mail list logo
