nadequate, and I have a feeling there are a few things
> that will need to change about it in the future. But with the above plan,
> this concern won't be a problem.
> > >>
> > >> Eric
> > >>
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >>
brary wouldn't be free to make API
> >> breaking changes with making the version `1.0.0`. The C# library is still
> >> pretty inadequate, and I have a feeling there are a few things that will
> >> need to change about it in the future. But with the above plan, this
a feeling there are a few things that will
>> need to change about it in the future. But with the above plan, this concern
>> won't be a problem.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Micah Kornfield
>> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 1
nday, July 1, 2019 10:02 PM
> To: Wes McKinney
> Cc: dev@arrow.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Compatibility Guarantees and Versioning Post "1.0.0"
>
> Hi Wes,
> Thanks for your response. In regards to the protocol negotiation your
> description of feature repo
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 10:02 PM
To: Wes McKinney
Cc: dev@arrow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Compatibility Guarantees and Versioning Post "1.0.0"
Hi Wes,
Thanks for your response. In regards to the protocol negotiation your
description of feature reporting (snipped below) is
Hi Wes,
Thanks for your response. In regards to the protocol negotiation your
description of feature reporting (snipped below) is along the lines of what
I was thinking. It might not be necessary for 1.0.0, but at some point
might become useful.
> Note that we don't really have a mechanism for
hi Micah,
Sorry for the delay in feedback. I looked at the document and it seems
like a reasonable perspective about forward- and
backward-compatibility.
It seems like the main thing you are proposing is to apply Semantic
Versioning to Format and Library versions separately. That's an
interesting
Hi Everyone,
I think there might be some ideas that we still need to reach consensus on
for how the format and libraries evolve in a post-1.0.0 release world.
Specifically, I think we need to agree on definitions for
backwards/forwards compatibility and its implications for versioning the
format.
