I just approved the PR that Div opened (linked in his email). Right now, the PR updates the build to use a local copy of the thrift file and adds a script to download new copies from parquet-format. New copies are specified by commit hash or by a ref, and the resolved version is tracked in a parquet-format.version file.
The script makes it easy to update to the latest copy, but rather than having scripts to check and diff the local copy I suggested that we use `git` instead. Since the file is version controlled, we have very good tools to view changes and history already. I'd like to merge this soon, unless there are objections. Please take a look at the PR if you're interested. Ryan On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 2:02 PM Divjot Arora via dev <[email protected]> wrote: > I've put up a PR [1] to inline parquet.thrift into parquet-java and > remove the upstream > dependency on parquet-format. There are some scripts to help manage > upgrading the inlined > copy as well as to check whether it references a released parquet-format > version. Please take > a look if interested, I look forward to any feedback. > > Best, > Div > > [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/3709 > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 12:25 PM Divjot Arora <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the input folks. I agree we want to keep this discussion > > focused on > > parquet-java's use of parquet.thrift rather than the versioning cadence > of > > parquet-format. > > I'll start a POC so we can discuss specifics. My thinking is that there > > should be some > > script to update the inlined version to match a commit hash in > > parquet-format. The main > > branch can track parquet-format commits without any issue (this will > allow > > reference > > implementations for new features to actually get merged). I can look into > > a release-time > > check to ensure that released versions of parquet-java strictly track > > released versions of > > parquet.format. > > > > -- Div > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:47 PM Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 10:30 AM Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > > I think we should also make more frequent releases of > parquet-format. > >> > > >> > I'd like to keep this a separate topic from how we work with the > thrift > >> > file in parquet-java so that we can move forward independently. We > don't > >> > need to know how parquet-format is released to agree that we want to > be > >> > able to build against newer structures without a formal release, just > >> like > >> > the other implementations do. > >> > > >> > >> Fair enough. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > What is the mechanism to track what version of parquet-format, > >> > parquet-java > >> > depends on? > >> > > >> > Like the other projects, I don't think we track a specific version of > >> the > >> > one from parquet-format, since we may pick changes that have not been > >> > released (as that's the pain point we're trying to solve). > >> > > >> > That said, I suggest that we sync the format into parquet-java when > the > >> > upstream format is released, if not sooner. We should always use a > >> version > >> > that corresponds to a parquet-format commit to avoid drift. > >> > > >> > > >> Either in the main branch of parquet-java or at a minimum in releases of > >> parquet-java we should have an automated check that this file is in sync > >> with an official release of parquet-format. > >> > >> > >> > >> > Ryan > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 10:21 AM Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hello, > >> > > I'm strongly in favor of enabling a passing build on PRs like #3610 > >> > > What is the mechanism to track what version of parquet-format, > >> > > parquet-java depends on? Is there a check to track discrepancies or > >> > drift? > >> > > A > >> > > POC would help clarify this. > >> > > > >> > > Separately, I think we should also make more frequent releases of > >> > > parquet-format. > >> > > That could be formalized in our new versioning process. > >> > > In particular every time we merge a new change to the thrift file, > we > >> > could > >> > > systematically create a new minor-patch release of Parquet format > with > >> > the > >> > > addition in preview or experimental depending where we're at. > >> > > The documentation would clarify whether a new optional field is part > >> of > >> > the > >> > > official version yet or not. > >> > > That would decouple publishing versioned artifacts and declaring > >> > something > >> > > part of the next official version. > >> > > (and independently of that we can either depend on a tagged version > of > >> > the > >> > > file rather than the maven artifact) > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:42 AM Russell Spitzer < > >> > [email protected] > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > +1 for all the reasons stated above. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 10:21 PM Gang Wu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm in favor of this proposal. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > PoCing a Java implementation in the current setup is painful. CI > >> > builds > >> > > > > will > >> > > > > always fail, and PRs cannot merge before releasing a new > >> > parquet-format > >> > > > > jar. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Best, > >> > > > > Gang > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 8:46 PM Antoine Pitrou < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Le 21/07/2026 à 14:05, Andrew Lamb a écrit : > >> > > > > > > As a maintainer of arrow-rs 's Parquet implementation, my > >> > > experience > >> > > > > has > >> > > > > > > been that our copy of parquet.thrift (rather than a > >> dependency) > >> > has > >> > > > > > worked > >> > > > > > > great, and we have never had an issue with this scheme that > I > >> can > >> > > > > > remember > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > We do the same in Arrow C++ and never had any problem with it > >> > either. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Regards > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Antoine. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Andrew > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 7:19 AM Divjot Arora via dev < > >> > > > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi folks, > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> The parquet-java project currently declares a dependency > on a > >> > > pinned > >> > > > > > >> version of parquet-format and dynamically pulls in the > >> > > > parquet.thrift > >> > > > > > file > >> > > > > > >> for the pinned version. > >> > > > > > >> This makes it impossible to validate and merge PRs to > support > >> > new > >> > > > > > features > >> > > > > > >> that have been merged into parquet-format but are not yet > >> part > >> > of > >> > > an > >> > > > > > >> official parquet-format > >> > > > > > >> release (https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/3610 > >> is an > >> > > > > > example). > >> > > > > > >> In contrast, the arrow-rs and arrow-cpp projects have a > >> vendored > >> > > > copy > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > > >> parquet.thrift in their > >> > > > > > >> repos, which allows them to bypass this problem. What do > >> folks > >> > > think > >> > > > > > about > >> > > > > > >> adopting this vendored approach in parquet-java? > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> -- Div Arora > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
