Hi, Yeah, to be honest, I was more focused on Java versioning.
Maybe, we can "group" Arrow components in two major areas: the "core" libs and the components using the "core" libs. C++ can have its own versioning, and the rest is decoupled from each other but it will depend to C++ release. I think it's do-able and probably "cleaner". Regards JB On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:55 PM Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Probably major versions should match between C++ and PyArrow, but I guess > > we could have diverging minor and patch versions. Or at least patch > > versions given that > > a new minor version is usually cut for bug fixes too. > > I believe even this would be difficult. Stable ABIs are very finicky in > C++. If the public API surface changes in any way then it can lead to > subtle bugs if pyarrow were to link against an older version. I also am > not sure there is much advantage in trying to separate pyarrow from > arrow-cpp since they are almost always changing in lockstep (e.g. any > change to arrow-cpp enables functionality in pyarrow). > > I think we should maybe focus on a few more obvious cases. > > I think C#, JS, Java, and Go are the most obvious candidates to decouple. > Even then, we should probably only separate these candidates if they have > willing release managers. > > C/GLib, python, and ruby are all tightly coupled to C++ at the moment and > should not be a first priority. I would have guessed that R is also in > this list but Jacob reported in the original email that they are already > somewhat decoupled? > > I don't know anything about swift or matlab. > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 6:23 AM Alessandro Molina > <alessan...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 3:06 PM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > We have had separate releases / votes for Arrow Rust (and Arrow > > DataFusion) > > > and it has served us quite well. The version schemes have diverged > > > substantially from the monorepo (we are on version 51.0.0 in arrow-rs, > > for > > > example) and it doesn't seem to have caused any large confusion with > > users > > > > > > > > I think that versioning will require additional thinking for libraries like > > PyArrow, Java etc... > > For rust this is a non problem because there is no link to the C++ library, > > > > PyArrow instead is based on what the C++ library provides, > > so there is a direct link between the features provided by C++ in a > > specific version > > and the features provided in PyArrow at a specific version. > > > > More or less PyArrow 20 should have the same bug fixes that C++ 20 has, > > and diverging the two versions would lead to confusion easily. > > Probably major versions should match between C++ and PyArrow, but I guess > > we could have diverging minor and patch versions. Or at least patch > > versions given that > > a new minor version is usually cut for bug fixes too. > >
