Sorry, I sent this on Friday but forgot to change the sender to my ASF account and my gmail gets blocked for some reason. I wanted to cover why I think it is both reasonable and important to continue with the vote even though there are questions about what happens after we decide to use versions.
Antoine said: > Well, the above shows that it's not exactly clear what is being voted > on, yet. At least it's not clear to me and potentially other bystanders. > I assume it's clear to you :-) I think this is the key issue for the vote, so I want to address it to explain why I think it's important to continue. >From my perspective, we spent more than a month discussing versions vs presets (that is, release by vote with numeric labels vs mechanistic with time-based labels). To make my perspective easier to see, I'll use an analogy: we want to make juice and had a long discussion over Apples vs Oranges. That discussion trailed off 2 weeks ago. I had noted that we're really just trying to decide between Apples and Oranges. We discussed this in the Parquet sync to see if anyone else (not on the discuss thread) had a strong opinion. It appeared that we had said all we needed to about the choice of Apples vs Oranges. So I started a vote to affirm what I think is the clear community preference for Apples (only 2 exceptions). Continuing with the analogy a little further, I'm confused because the objections are (1) "Can you even juice an Apple?" and (2) "Is this a vote to choose Apples vs Oranges?". For (1), we have examples that this works. And for (2), I'm struggling to see how this wasn't clear from the context. The idea is simply to make a call on the decision point we outlined in our discussion. (I hope the analogy helps make my perspective easier to understand.) I also think it is important to leave the vote open. I understand the ask: to write a document on how versions work. But exactly what it means to bump the minor version of parquet-format is unrelated to our decision to use a vote to release new format versions. We should focus on the decision point at hand. In addition, I think it is positive that this has sparked interest in learning how versioning a format works, so I am reluctant to cancel the vote only to return to silence. Hopefully that makes my thinking clear. Next, how do we move forward? Antoine, what if you, Julien, and I work together to finalize Julien's doc about how versions will work? That way you can ensure the proposal meets your expectations and I can see that we are making progress. Would that work for you? On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 11:05 PM Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 09/07/2026 à 23:00, Ryan Blue a écrit : > >> The previous thread was entitled "[DISCUSS] Moving to SemVer for > >> parquet-format releases". :-) > > > > We should not conflate parquet-format releases with versions of the > Parquet > > spec. Much of the spec is defined in the thrift file of that release, but > > it's not the same thing. > > I very well hope that we make it the same thing. We have too many > version numbers already, we don't want to add another one yet. > > I certainly assumed that your vote applied to parquet-format releases > and wasn't proposing a separate versioning space... > > >> That's a good point. It deserves encoding somewhere, IMHO. > > > > How about a vote? > > Well, the above shows that it's not exactly clear what is being voted > on, yet. At least it's not clear to me and potentially other bystanders. > I assume it's clear to you :-) > > Regards > > Antoine. > > >
