Please vote on this thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/rd271soqncrskd11kcr174gchd1vzpkc
On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 4:46 PM Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, I am catching up as I'm back from my trip. > I'm glad this is making progress. > I am generally in favor of this versioning scheme for Parquet. So that's > a +1 from me here. > I also agree that we need a mechanism to clarify the details, so I have > started a doc where I *think* I have incorporated people's feedback from > the threads. > Parquet Versioning proposal > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/19bOTy1WcLs9NP88DrysG4wG50pM6gmIFaSEWzkxUeJw/edit> > I think this will be a good mechanism to finalize the details and clarify > the goals so please comment on it. > I also think that we need to keep the discussion focused on the minimal > definition of this to make incremental progress faster (I appreciate the > concise 3-bullet definition provided by Ryan for this vote!). To that point > I have put certain things in the doc in "Additional considerations" which I > think we can finalize later after we agree on the underlying versioning. > Julien > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 12:40 PM Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Le 09/07/2026 à 20:39, Ryan Blue a écrit : >> > Antoine, please help me keep questions on the Q&A thread. >> > >> > With about a 2-week gap in the discussion thread, no serious concerns at >> > the last sync, and changes blocked on this decision, it is time for a >> bias >> > toward action. >> >> Can you expand on which changes are blocked on this? We can continue >> release Parquet format versions as usual while we discuss a new >> versioning scheme. This is not blocking any new encoding or logical type. >> >> > If nothing else, I'm glad that this thread is resulting in more serious >> > consideration and questions. >> >> Indeed, but then we agree this is not ready for a vote, right? >> >> Regards >> >> Antoine. >> >> >>
