I think this [1] is the thread where the policy was proposed, but it doesn't look like we ever settled on "Java and C++" vs. "any two implementations", or had a vote.
I worry that requiring maintainers to add new format features to two "complete" implementations will just lead to fragmentation. People might opt to maintain a fork rather than unblock themselves by implementing a backlog of features they don't need. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/9t0pglrvxjhrt4r4xcsc1zmgmbtr8pxj On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 12:33 PM Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it would be reasonable to state that a reference > implementation must be a complete implementation (i.e. supports all > existing types) that is not derived from another implementation (e.g. > you can't pick pyarrow and arrow-c++). If an implementation does not > plan on ever supporting a new array type then maintainers of that > implementation should be empowered to vote against it. Given that, it > seems like a reasonable burden to ask maintainers to catch up first > before expanding in new directions. > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 10:20 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Note this wording talks about "two reference implementations" not > "*the* > > > two reference implementations". So there can be more than two reference > > > implementations. > > > > > > Maybe reference implementation is the wrong wording here. My main > concern > > is that we try to maintain two "feature complete" implementations at all > > times. I worry if there is a pick 2 from N reference implementations > that > > potentially leads to fragmentation more quickly. But maybe this is > > premature? > > > > Cheers, > > Micah > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 10:02 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Le 06/01/2023 à 18:58, Micah Kornfield a écrit : > > > > I'm having trouble finding it, but I think we've previously agreed > that > > > new > > > > features needed implementations in 2 reference implementations before > > > > approval (I had thought the community agreed on Java and C++ as the > two > > > > implementations but I can't find the vote thread on it). > > > > > > Note this wording talks about "two reference implementations" not > "*the* > > > two reference implementations". So there can be more than two reference > > > implementations. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Antoine. > > > >
