Thanks, Gang, for helping out for these releases. Question: I was playing with release process and seems only committers can push to the repository. Can the contributors get the permission?
> > On Aug 25, 2025, at 12:58 AM, Fokko Driesprong <[email protected]> wrote: > > Go for it :) > > Op ma 25 aug 2025 om 09:40 schreef Gang Wu <[email protected]>: > >> Sounds good! I can also help with these two releases. >> >> Let me start the format release unless someone beats me :) >> >> Best, >> Gang >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 3:28 PM Fokko Driesprong <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Gábor. Yesterday, a PR has been merged >>> < >>> >> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/commits/dac5a35040ab57000b84246746c5c9cb25267261/src/main/thrift >>>> >>> that also touches the Thrift file. I think the release should be >>> pretty straightforward, and I'm happy to help out with both releases. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Fokko >>> >>> Op ma 25 aug 2025 om 09:00 schreef Gábor Szádovszky <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> I think it would be cleaner to have a parquet-format release with the >>>> finalized spec first. Referencing it in the parquet-java release would >>>> state clearly that it is (supposed to) working according to the >> finalized >>>> specification. >>>> >>>> Gabor >>>> >>>> Gang Wu <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. aug. 25., H, >> 4:48): >>>> >>>>> The vote [1] for finalizing variant spec has passed so it's time to >>>> revive >>>>> this discussion. >>>>> >>>>> I just checked all the commits [2] to parquet-format since the last >>>> release >>>>> and found >>>>> that there is no thrift definition change. All commits are about >>>>> clarification or fixing typos. >>>>> Should we skip the format release and directly jump to the >> parquet-java >>>>> release? >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/mr2voh7twz2hql4y59x5c7o32kntmbvm >>>>> [2] >>>>> >>>> >>> >> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/commits/master/?since=2025-03-24 >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Gang >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 9:58 AM Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the heads up! >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I think a formal vote is required before merging the PR. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Gang >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 12:36 AM Aihua Xu <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi community, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me know if a vote process is needed or we can review in >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/509 (which is to >>> remove >>>>> the >>>>>>> under development lines). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Aihua >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 10:53 AM Aihua Xu <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Micah and community, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We’ve generated the test files from Go (PR #94 >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing/pull/94>) and >>>> successfully >>>>>>>> validated them in Parquet-Java (PR #3258 >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/3258>). During >>>> testing, >>>>> we >>>>>>>> identified two minor issues in the Go generation: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The spec version should be *1* instead of *0*. >>>>>>>> 2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Parquet TIME type should be TIME(isAdjustedToUTC=false, >>>> MICROS) >>>>>>>> instead of TIME(isAdjustedToUTC=true, MICROS). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These issues have already been addressed by Matt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looking ahead, here’s what I propose for closing out the Variant >>>>>>> release: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Start a vote to finalize the Variant spec (removing the two >>> lines >>>>>>>> under *active development*). >>>>>>>> 2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Start a vote for the Parquet-Java 1.16.0 release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please share your thoughts on these next steps, or let me know >> if >>>> you >>>>>>> see >>>>>>>> anything else we should address before proceeding. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Aihua >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 9:28 PM Micah Kornfield < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You want to see if the write path in GO is compatible? Let >>>>>>>>>> me check with Matt on this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, IIUC, I think there are now multiple OSS reader >>>> implementations, >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> have all been validated against parquet-java writing. So I >> think >>>> it >>>>> is >>>>>>>>> important we validate a second writer can produce files that >> can >>> be >>>>>>> read >>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>> parquet-java. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Micah >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 9:17 AM Aihua Xu <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Micah, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What we have done is to generate a large set of the test >> cases >>>> from >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Iceberg project and validate in Java and GO. All of those >>>>>>>>> implementations >>>>>>>>>> are independent. You want to see if the write path in GO is >>>>>>> compatible? >>>>>>>>> Let >>>>>>>>>> me check with Matt on this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Aihua >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 9:24 PM Micah Kornfield < >>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We have completed cross-language validation for variant >> and >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> implementation compatibility appears solid >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Great, apologies if I missed it but did we verify Java >> being >>>> able >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> read >>>>>>>>>>> Go's output? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 9:38 PM Aihua Xu <[email protected] >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We have completed cross-language validation for variant >> and >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> implementation compatibility appears solid. Matt has >> raised >>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> comments >>>>>>>>>>>> regarding how to handle invalid cases. In fact, we had a >>> long >>>>>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>>>>>>> during the spec development about whether to explicitly >>>> define >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>>>>>>> for such cases. We should be able to clear that out soon. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 2025, at 2:35 PM, Jia Yu <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Gang, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for letting me know. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it make sense to create a new Parquet Java branch >>>> that >>>>>>>>> includes >>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>> other commits except the Variant type implementation? >>> That >>>>>>> way, we >>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>>> release a version without Variant entirely. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We’re eager to get the Geo type released, but at the >> same >>>>>>> time, we >>>>>>>>>>> don’t >>>>>>>>>>>>> want to rush the Variant work or ship something that’s >>> not >>>>>>> fully >>>>>>>>>> ready. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jia >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 1:25 AM Gang Wu < >>> [email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parquet-cpp does not implement variant type yet, so it >>> is >>>>>>> safe to >>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the geo types. IIUC, there is no easy way to block >> users >>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>> producing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> files with variant types in parquet-java, so this is >> the >>>>> main >>>>>>>>>> concern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps Aihua can provide an update on the progress? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gang >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:11 AM Jia Yu < >>> [email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for all your hard work on Parquet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for my ignorance, but I’d like to better >>> understand >>>>> why >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> Parquet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java release for Geo types is currently tied to the >>>> Variant >>>>>>> type >>>>>>>>>>> work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arrow C++ (Parquet C++) has already been released >> with >>>> Geo >>>>>>> type >>>>>>>>>>>> support, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it doesn’t seem to have encountered similar >> issues. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Geo type support in Iceberg has been stalled for >>>>> several >>>>>>>>> months >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Iceberg PMC cannot review or merge the >>> implementation >>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>>>> there’s a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding Parquet Java release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to proceed with a new Parquet >> Java >>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> Geo, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and mark the Variant type as experimental or keep it >>>>> behind a >>>>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flag? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’d really appreciate your thoughts on this and am >>>> looking >>>>>>>>> forward >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 10:33 AM Aihua Xu < >>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems the concern from Gabor is that we should >>> finalize >>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Variant >>>>>>>>>>>>>> spec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/VariantEncoding.md >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/VariantShredding.md >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a parquet-format release, and then move forward >>>> with >>>>>>>>>>> parquet-java >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. I totally agree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should have met the requirement with two >> reference >>>>>>>>>>> implementations >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variant in open source and I will start a VOTE >> thread >>>>>>>>> separately >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> close >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out the Variant spec if no objections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the discussions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aihua >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 3:41 AM Andrew Lamb < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, I’d like to check if we have enough >>>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coverage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move forward with finalizing the Variant spec. >>>> Would >>>>> it >>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start a vote thread at this stage? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my opinion we have sufficient open source >>>>>>> implementations >>>>>>>>> (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Golang >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation on arrow-go) and a vote to finalize >>> the >>>>> spec >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate (and welcome) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From my experience working on the Rust >> implementation >>>> so >>>>>>> far, >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spec clear and easy to understand, the design >>> well >>>>>>> thought >>>>>>>>>> out, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have not encountered anything that would require >> any >>>>>>> changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kudos to the team who designed and wrote the spec >> for >>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> feature, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 2:08 AM Jia Yu < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Aihua! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The geo type implementation in Iceberg is >> currently >>>>>>> blocked >>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Really looking forward to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 10:47 PM Gábor Szádovszky >> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My concern was related to the current stage of >> the >>>>>>> Variant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the fact that we started talking about >>> releasing >>>>>>>>>> parquet-java >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variant features. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we formally release parquet-format with the >>>>> finalized >>>>>>>>>> Variant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first, then I have no concerns about writing >>> Variant >>>>>>> values >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upcoming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parquet-java release. Otherwise, we need to block >>> it >>>> by >>>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mark >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an experimental feature. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gabor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aihua Xu <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: >>>> 2025. >>>>>>> júl. >>>>>>>>>> 16., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sze, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 19:37): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Gabor and all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here’s my current understanding of the progress >> on >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Variant* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parquet: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Per Parquet's requirements, we need at least >> two >>>>>>>>> reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementations to finalize the Variant >> logical >>>> type >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The community is actively working on Java, Go, >>> and >>>>>>> Rust >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementations: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java already has the encoding and shredding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variant Decoding < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/3197> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variant Encoding < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/3202> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variant Shredding Writer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/issues/3223> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variant Shredding Reader >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/issues/3211> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go also includes encoding and shredding >>>> support: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variant Encoding/Decoding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < >>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-go/pull/344> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variant Shredding < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-go/pull/434> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rust is currently working on the shredding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition to these, we already have a full >>> Variant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Iceberg, as well as in some closed-source >>>>>>> engines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, I’d like to check if we have >> enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coverage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move forward with finalizing the Variant >> spec. >>>>> Would >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start a vote thread at this stage? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately, our goal is to release a new version >>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parquet-format >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parquet-java that includes the Variant logical >>> type, >>>>> so >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iceberg >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other engines can officially depend on it and >>>> proceed >>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know your thoughts and how we should >>> proceed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aihua >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 10:08 PM Gábor >> Szádovszky >>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was not able to open the recordings of the >> last >>>>>>> meeting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permission issues. (Shouldn't these be >> accessible >>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone?) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I'm not sure if you have talked about this, >>> but >>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Variant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spec >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still not final. Since parquet-java already has >>>>> Variant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent writing potentially invalid Variant >> data >>>> with >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types we will use for the finalized spec? Is it >>>>> behind >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flag? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gabor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aihua Xu <[email protected]> ezt írta >> (időpont: >>>>> 2025. >>>>>>>>> júl. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11., >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 19:33): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi community, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As discussed in the last community sync-up >>>> meeting, >>>>>>> I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with releasing *Parquet-Java 1.16.0*, which >> will >>>>>>> include >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *geo-type* and *variant*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if you have any objections >> or >>>> if >>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upcoming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes you'd like to include in this release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aihua >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
