hi Jacques, I agree with your reasoning. I think it's important to go through the implementation exercise to make sure we have the details right and everyone is on board with adding something new (or changing or deprecating something existing). I also agree with formalizing the voting process with changes to the format/ directory.
Are there specific changes to format/ that have been merged that you are concerned about that you feel need to be discussed separately? There have been some changes related to serializing tensor metadata that are clearly marked as experimental, and they also do not interact with the columnar format. Thanks, Wes On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 4:18 PM Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > > I want to bring up a concern I have with the recent changes to the format. > To me, part of the strength of the project is that you have multiple > bindings for Arrow the are cross-compatible and consistent. As such, I'd > like to propose the following process when dealing with format changes: > > - Format changes (files in /format), should go through a formal DISCUSS > and VOTE process as opposed to standard code review requirements. > - We should only merge changes to the format to master when they also > include reference implementation/support in Java and C++ and associated > integration tests. > > What do others think?
