Antoine, given the rationales above, any objections to proceeding with the hugo template for now?
Thanks, Micah On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 11:11 PM Micah Kornfield <[email protected]> wrote: > As an update, I converted the data to YAML (minimal changes were needed > for the template). > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 10:13 AM Andrew Lamb <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I also really like the idea of a data driven page, thank you for doing >> this >> >> I agree with Antoine that YAML (with comments) would be preferable than >> json >> >> I also personally slightly prefer using hugo templates rather than a new >> python script to reduce the number of technologies required to build >> parquet-site as well as the reasons Micah mentions. >> >> Andrew >> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 12:58 PM Micah Kornfield <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Antoine, >> > >> > Thanks for the feedback. >> > >> > >> > > 1) JSON is annoying to edit manually and doesn't support comments; >> > >> > >> > Happy to switch to YAML. >> > >> > 2) ingesting and processing data from a HTML templating >> > > language is cumbersome) >> > >> > >> > Ingesting is actually not the problem. I agree processing is a little >> bit >> > cumbersome but at this point, I'd rather keep this in Hugo for the >> > following reasons: >> > >> > 1. Python or even plain Go code might be preferable, but there is no >> way >> > to do this within the Hugo framework. This means there is a trade-off >> in >> > developer/CI complexity for keeping a separate script up-to-date (right >> > now, you can modify the template and Hugo will re-render automatically, >> > making for a tight dev-loop. >> > 2. At least at the moment, I don't anticipate a lot of changes needed >> to >> > this template, and if we do find maintenance cumbersome it shouldn't be >> > heavy lift to migrate to python. >> > >> > As a path forward, let me see what changes are needed to migrate to >> YAML, >> > if these require a lot of changes to the current Hugo template, I can >> > rewrite it in python. Otherwise, I'd prefer we do the migration when we >> > observe it is needed. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Micah >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 2:38 AM Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > Hi Micah, >> > > >> > > Thanks a lot for taking the time to do this. >> > > >> > > I think this is a good idea on the principle. However, >> maintenance-wise, >> > > I think it might be more future-proof to start with YAML files and >> have >> > > the rendering done by a Python script. >> > > >> > > (rationale: 1) JSON is annoying to edit manually and doesn't support >> > > comments; 2) ingesting and processing data from a HTML templating >> > > language is cumbersome) >> > > >> > > As for point 2 below, I might also remind people of the idea I >> proposed >> > > some while ago on the issue tracker, namely to define calendar-based >> > > "presets" based on feature availability in the ~3 main open source >> > > Parquet implementations: >> > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/issues/384#issuecomment-3406653123 >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > >> > > Antoine. >> > > >> > > >> > > Le 10/12/2025 à 02:02, Micah Kornfield a écrit : >> > > > Hi Parquet Dev, >> > > > I put a draft PR together [1] to refactor the implementation status >> > page >> > > > [2] to use JSON as data layer and render it using hugo code. >> > > > >> > > > My rationale for doing this: >> > > > 1. I think in the long run it will make it easier to review and >> make >> > > small >> > > > updates from engines (mostly be comparing new/updates rows of JSON >> > for a >> > > > single engine). Adding new data for a new engine would only have to >> > > touch a >> > > > file specific to that engine after it is first registered. >> > > > 2. I think it is a good idea to start collecting more metadata (in >> > > > particular version number/release date) for implementations. I >> think >> > > > displaying/tracking this might get tricky without a more structured >> > > > approach. In particular I think having different pivots on >> > > features/dates >> > > > would be useful. >> > > > >> > > > Developing locally, the current iteration of the change generates >> > > > effectively the same visible content. I also tried to add hyperlinks >> > from >> > > > notes to the actual note (at least on my browser these seem a bit >> weird >> > > as >> > > > they scroll just slightly past the note). >> > > > >> > > > Any objections to proceeding with this type of change? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Micah >> > > > >> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/143 >> > > > [2] >> https://parquet.apache.org/docs/file-format/implementationstatus/ >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
