+1 We should explicitly discourage further use of “Feather” to refer to
Arrow IPC files.
In this spirit of simplifying terminology: Does the “IPC” in the term
“Arrow IPC files” serve a truly necessary purpose? Is there another type of
“Arrow file” that the “IPC” serves to disambiguate? If not, can
+1 for 1.
Thanks,
--
kou
In
"Re: Usage of the name Feather?" on Mon, 29 Aug 2022 20:18:37 +0200,
Jorge Cardoso Leitão wrote:
> I agree.
>
> I suspect that the most widely used API with "feather" is Pandas'
> read_feather.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022, 19:55 Weston Pace, wrote:
>
>> I
I agree.
I suspect that the most widely used API with "feather" is Pandas'
read_feather.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022, 19:55 Weston Pace, wrote:
> I agree as well. I think most lingering uses of the term "feather"
> are in pyarrow and R however, so it might be good to hear from some of
> those mainta
I agree as well. I think most lingering uses of the term "feather"
are in pyarrow and R however, so it might be good to hear from some of
those maintainers.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 9:35 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>
> I agree with this as well.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022
Hello,
I am currently creating some new documentation here:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/13859, and would like to enhance other
documentation over time, so I would like to figure out best practices.
However, some areas lack standardization in the documentation.
In particular, classes are
I agree with this as well.
Regards
Antoine.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 11:29:45 -0400
Andrew Lamb wrote:
> In the rust implementation we use the term "Arrow IPC" and I support your
> option 1:
>
> > The name Feather V2 is deprecated. Only the extension ".arrow" will be
> used for IPC files.
>
>
In the rust implementation we use the term "Arrow IPC" and I support your
option 1:
> The name Feather V2 is deprecated. Only the extension ".arrow" will be
used for IPC files.
Andrew
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 11:21 AM Matthew Topol
wrote:
> When I wrote "In-Memory Analytics with Apache Arrow" I
When I wrote "In-Memory Analytics with Apache Arrow" I definitely
treated "Feather" as deprecated and mentioned it only in passing
specifically indicating "Arrow IPC" as the terminology to use. I only
even mentioned "Feather" at all because there are still methods in
pyarrow that reference it b
This has come up before, e.g. see [1] [2] [3].
I would say "Feather" is effectively deprecated and we are using "Arrow IPC"
now but I am not sure what others think. (From that GitHub link, it seems to be
mixed.) And ".arrow" is the official extension now (since it is registered as
part of our M
+1 (non-binding) and preference for the "arrow." namespace.
Rok
Hi all.
I know the documentation (mainly pyarrow documentation) sometimes refers
to IPC files as Feather files, but are there any guidelines for when to
refer to an IPC file as a Feather file and when to refer to it as an IPC
file?
I believe that calling the same file an Arrow IPC file at time
+1 with "arrow." prefix because we already use "ARROW:" not
"ORG.APACHE.ARROW:" for reserved metadata name prefix.
https://arrow.apache.org/docs/format/Columnar.html#custom-application-metadata
> The ARROW pattern is a reserved namespace for internal
> Arrow use in the custom_metadata fields. For
With 8 +1 votes (3 binding) the release is approved. I apologize for the
delay in releasing as I was out last week
The release is available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/arrow/arrow-rs-21.0.0
It has also been released to crates.io
https://crates.io/crates/arrow
https://crate
For completeness, I believe there is a corresponding issue [1] with
resolution in the datafusion repo (double quotes are needed)
Andrew
[1] https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/3203
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 2:16 PM Shao Grant wrote:
> sorry, it's in rust not python, my bad..
>
>
>
+1
Really well written, thanks for driving this!
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022, 11:16 Antoine Pitrou, wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Just a heads up that more PMC votes are needed here.
>
>
>
> Le 24/08/2022 à 17:24, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to propose we vote for the following
Hello,
With 5 binding +1 votes, 7 non-binding +1 votes, and no -1 vote, the
vote has passed.
The next steps will be conceptually as follows:
- require C++17 instead of C++11 in the build configuration(s)
- remove pre-C++17 compatibility measures in the codebase
- start using C++17 idioms and
Hello,
Just a heads up that more PMC votes are needed here.
Le 24/08/2022 à 17:24, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
Hello,
I would like to propose we vote for the following set of rules for
registering well-known ("canonical") extension types.
* Canonical extension types are described and maint
17 matches
Mail list logo
