> Well, I don't understand how 2.11 is "time-based". The parquet-format
I was thinking it was time based as the version increases monotonically over time > > The only missing piece is that parquet-format version is not recorded in > > the metadata itself. > Aren't we moving the goalposts here? > IIRC the basis for this discussion was to inform Parquet *writers* about > which features can safely be enabled. Recording the format version in a > Parquet file's metadata does not help achieve that. In my mind they are connected -- recording the format in the metadata would allow writers to explicltly communicate to downstream readers which features are required for reading, which I think would make the compatibility consideration of "what features do I use when writing this parquet file" On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 10:35 AM Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 09/06/2026 à 15:18, Andrew Lamb a écrit : > > While working to document what features are forwards incompatible and > what > > parquet-format version they were introduced in[1], it occurs to me that > we > > **already have** a versioning scheme that is frequently released, time > > based and clearly defines feature levels: > > > > parquet-format version (e.g. 2.11, 2.12, etc). <---- We already have > this! > > Well, I don't understand how 2.11 is "time-based". The parquet-format > repo doesn't even have a periodic release schedule. > > > The only missing piece is that parquet-format version is not recorded in > > the metadata itself. > > Aren't we moving the goalposts here? > > IIRC the basis for this discussion was to inform Parquet *writers* about > which features can safely be enabled. Recording the format version in a > Parquet file's metadata does not help achieve that. > > And why would a Parquet reader bother checking the version? Usually, > there is no format version that is an exact match for a Parquet reader > implementation's feature set. > > > ps. If you squint, I think the parquet-format versions look a lot like a > > combination of "preset" and versions, which is also a nice property. > > You really have to squint *a lot* for that to work... > > Regards > > Antoine. > > >
