That seems reasonable to me. FWIW, I opened
https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/917 to update the language.
Thanks,
Micah
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:31 AM Sean Busbey wrote:
> I'm happy to make PR clarifying this. I'm a little bit concerned that if
>> validation doesn't exist in Java (and
>
> I'm happy to make PR clarifying this. I'm a little bit concerned that if
> validation doesn't exist in Java (and maybe other languages today) if we
> make the spec stricter it could break users. How has the community handled
> issues like this in the past?
Something similar happened for
Sounds like a reasonable spec change. I think this would be our first
breaking spec change? does that mean this is the time for us to hash
out versioning the spec, or are we going to update all of our versions
to 2.x?
Can we get an idea on failure expectations for the SDKs we maintain?
On Wed,
+1
Been playing around with it a bit and it looks OK.
Dan
> On Jun 11, 2020, at 4:53 AM, Ismaël Mejía wrote:
>
> Kind reminder two days have passed, please check and vote!
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:29 AM Andy Le wrote:
>>
>> Hey Ryan,
>>
>> Thank you for your clear explanation.
>>
Downloaded the Ruby gem and tested with several other Ruby libraries that
depend on Avro: avro-builder, avromatic, avro_turf,
avro-resolution_canonical_form
[x] +1 Release this as Apache Avro 1.10.0
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 Do not release this because...
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:54 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote:
Kind reminder two days have passed, please check and vote!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:29 AM Andy Le wrote:
>
> Hey Ryan,
>
> Thank you for your clear explanation.
>
> +1 for me :D
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> On 2020/06/10 14:39:10, Ryan Skraba wrote:
> > Hey Anh, a release requires 3 PMC votes, but
