The only worry I have about declaring a writer version is possible confusion with the Parquet format version itself. The format is already defined through version 2.1 or something like that, but we are currently only writing files based on the 1.x version of the format.
My preferred solution to this problem would be to just make point releases for problems like this (like in this case we could have made a 1.8.1 release, and then all of the 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT would all known to be bad and everything after would be 1.8.1-SNAPSHOT and could have been known to be correct). I'm open to to hearing other opinions on this, I just generally feel like these bugs should be rare, and fixing them should be done with a lot of care (and in this case I missed a few things). I don't think it would be crazy to say that we should only merge these kinds of patches if we are willing to say the fix is ready for a release. Jason Altekruse Software Engineer at Dremio Apache Drill Committer On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Vitalii Diravka <vitalii.dira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jinfeng, > > isDateCorrect will be false in the code when isDateCorrect property is > absent in the parquet metadata. > > Anyway I am going to implement the mentioned approach with the > parquet-writer.version instead of isDateCorrect property. >
