The vote passes. With 4 +1 Binding (Micah, Gang, Julien, Uwe) 4 +1 non-binding votes (Andrew, Alkis, Vinoo, Ed) 0 -1 votes
Thanks everyone for the discussion and feedback. I'll leave the PRs open until Wednesday, in case there is any more word-smithing and then merge. On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 9:41 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you. > > Did you want to add a sentence about Logical Types per Antoine's comment? > > > I added "New logical types are considered forward compatible despite the > loss of semantic meaning." > I can remove this for now if we think it warrants further discussion, or > we can revise it in a follow-up PR. > > (my intent here is to suggest that as a practice we use votes >> parsimoniously only when we really need one) > > Generally, I agree, I thought in this case there was enough new content > and enough items that might be controversial that we should be explicit > about consensus. > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:25 PM Julien Le Dem <jul...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Thank you Micah for your patience. >> I have reviewed the PR and it looks good to me. >> Did you want to add a sentence about Logical Types per Antoine's comment? >> >> you can add my +1 to this vote. >> >> Side comment: >> Although I don't think we necessarily need a formal vote on this >> particular release guidance update, it also didn't hurt to have one. >> In a lot of cases we can rely on converging on +1s on the PR and have a >> discussion thread. >> (my intent here is to suggest that as a practice we use votes >> parsimoniously only when we really need one) >> >> Julien >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 1:30 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Everyone, >> > Julien and I talked offline and I made some updates based on the >> > conversation (I don't believe anything substantive, but there is more >> > balanced language on encouraging people who can to adopt features sooner >> > without any specific timelines attached). >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Micah >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 9:56 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > For example, there is still discussion about enabling >> > >> new forward incompatible features by default and the role of major >> > >> releases regarding that. >> > > >> > > Hi Julien, >> > > >> > > As written the specification does not require a major version release, >> > > this is a suggestion for implementations to advertise possible >> > > compatibility issues. >> > > >> > > Are there more points to discuss? Maybe we can pause this vote and >> try >> > to >> > > discuss it on the mailing list first. Given the wide range of input >> from >> > > people across multiple time-zones, I'm not sure we will easily come >> to a >> > > consensus without a discussion here anyways. >> > > >> > > I think everyone that had concerns about some of the more >> controversial >> > > points has already voted for adoption. The one significant topic that >> > has >> > > come up since votes, is whether new logical types that are considered >> > > forward compatible are not (as a strawman I put in that they should be >> > > considered forward compatible, but maybe we can punt on this and add a >> > > follow-up). >> > > >> > > Concretely, if there is current content that you strongly object to, >> I'd >> > > prefer to remove it (or change from a required to suggestion) so we >> can >> > get >> > > something merged and have another round of conversations to refine as >> > there >> > > is already a lot of content in the PRs. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Micah >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 3:23 PM Julien Le Dem <jul...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hello all. >> > >> I have finally done a proper review on this great proposal by Micah. >> > >> I have not been too available last month as I was half on vacation >> and >> > >> half >> > >> travelling for work. >> > >> I am now back home and have more time. >> > >> >> > >> I do think that there are a few points we need to discuss to get to a >> > >> crisper consensus on. For example, there is still discussion about >> > >> enabling >> > >> new forward incompatible features by default and the role of major >> > >> releases regarding that. >> > >> I think once we finalize that, we can merge it. >> > >> My opinion is we should take advantage of the parquet sync to speed >> up >> > >> converging. I'll follow up on the other thread to set it up. >> > >> >> > >> There is a discussion of having more frequent intermediary releases. >> I >> > >> think there is consensus on that and we don't need to wait for this >> PR >> > to >> > >> be finished to act on it. >> > >> >> > >> Micah, thanks again for your effort and contribution. Does that sound >> > like >> > >> a reasonable next step to you? >> > >> Best >> > >> Julien >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 9:53 AM Julien Le Dem <jul...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > FYI, I am working on commenting on the PR and should be able to >> finish >> > >> > today (PT). >> > >> > Overall I think this is good and I am making suggestions along the >> > way. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 10:50 PM Julien Le Dem <jul...@apache.org> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> I started looking today but haven’t had time to finish. >> > >> >> Let me get back to y’all soon. >> > >> >> Best >> > >> >> Julien >> > >> >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 13:06 Micah Kornfield < >> emkornfi...@gmail.com >> > > >> > >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >>> It looks like we only have 2 +1 votes from PMC members so far. I >> > >> would >> > >> >>> appreciate it if another PMC member could review and cast a vote? >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> Thanks, >> > >> >>> Micah >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 7:37 AM Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > +1 (binding) >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024, at 7:59 PM, Edward Seidl wrote: >> > >> >>> > > +1 (non-binding) >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > Thanks Micah! >> > >> >>> > > Ed >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > From: Vinoo Ganesh <vinoo.gan...@gmail.com> >> > >> >>> > > Date: Thursday, July 4, 2024 at 6:19 AM >> > >> >>> > > To: dev@parquet.apache.org <dev@parquet.apache.org> >> > >> >>> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Adopt proposal on new features for >> > >> parquet-format >> > >> >>> > > and release for Parquet Java >> > >> >>> > > +1 (non-binding) >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > Thank you Micah for all of your work on this! >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > <vinoo.gan...@gmail.com> >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 5:28 AM Andrew Lamb < >> > >> andrewlam...@gmail.com> >> > >> >>> > wrote: >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > >> +1 (non binding) >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> Thank you Micah for all the effort you have put into >> gathering >> > >> >>> feedback >> > >> >>> > and >> > >> >>> > >> building consensus >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> Andrew >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 2:48 AM Alkis Evlogimenos >> > >> >>> > >> <alkis.evlogime...@databricks.com.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> > +1 this is great, it puts a lot of clarity in the process. >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 4:26 AM Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > > Generally +1 on the proposal. Thanks for finalizing it! >> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > I have left a comment regarding the next major release >> of >> > >> >>> > parquet-java. >> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > Best, >> > >> >>> > >> > > Gang >> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 1:55 AM Micah Kornfield < >> > >> >>> > emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> > >> >>> > >> > > wrote: >> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > > This vote is whether to adopt and merge [1][2] a >> proposal >> > >> for >> > >> >>> > >> providing >> > >> >>> > >> > > > formal guidance on new features are added to the >> Parquet >> > >> >>> format, >> > >> >>> > >> > > > recommendations on when incompatible features should >> be >> > >> >>> turned on >> > >> >>> > in >> > >> >>> > >> > > > implementations by default and a proposed release >> cadence >> > >> for >> > >> >>> > >> > > Parquet-java. >> > >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > > This was first published for discussion on the dev >> > mailing >> > >> >>> list on >> > >> >>> > >> [3]. >> > >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > > Given we are headed into a holiday weekend in the US >> the >> > >> vote >> > >> >>> will >> > >> >>> > >> > remain >> > >> >>> > >> > > > open for until at least Wednesday, July 10th to ensure >> > >> >>> adequate >> > >> >>> > time >> > >> >>> > >> > for >> > >> >>> > >> > > > people who might be taking time away from their >> computer. >> > >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > > Thanks, >> > >> >>> > >> > > > Micah >> > >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > > [ ] +1 Adopt the guidance in the PR proposals and >> merge >> > >> them. >> > >> >>> > >> > > > [ ] +0 >> > >> >>> > >> > > > [ ] -1 Do not adopt the guidance because .... >> > >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/258 >> > >> >>> > >> > > > [2] >> https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/61/files >> > >> >>> > >> > > > [3] >> > >> >>> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/bcc13dtdvnxvg55nhyowbwzqomfljgvb >> > >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >
