I agree with this approach. Since this is an entirely new implementation for python, it makes more sense to take the initial version (pending any additional review/comments) and then continue to iterate from that point. It would be very difficult to break up into smaller commits and work through incrementally without adding a lot of value (though going forward we should lean into more incremental contributions).
I do think that Matt brings up some good points and initially I would lean into keeping a single repo and if we find there are more contributions in other languages that we reconsider separating the repos to keep them from impacting releases. Also, want to cal lout a huge thanks to Ted for all the work they did to contribute to this and Uwe for reviewing. -Dan On Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 12:26 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > One of our contributors, Ted, has done a lot of work on an initial python > implementation and Uwe was kind enough to review it. Here's the PR: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-iceberg/pull/54 > > Because this is a brand-new implementation, the PR is huge: 157 new files. > That makes it really tough to review in depth, and also really time > consuming to update and maintain. What I suggest is committing the PR as-is > now that it has passed a round of reviews. Then we can improve it in > smaller pull requests. > > Are there any objections to this plan or other thoughts? > > I think that the python implementation would not be included in the first > Apache Iceberg release. I would prefer to release the python implementation > on a separate release cycle so that Java blockers don't prevent a Python > bug fix and vice versa. > > rb > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Netflix >
