The PR was submitted and merged here:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/14167
We can now start discussing specific canonical types!
Regards
Antoine.
Le 30/08/2022 à 18:06, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
Hello,
With 3 binding +1 votes, 3 non-binding +1 votes, and no -1 vote, the
vote has pas
Hello,
With 3 binding +1 votes, 3 non-binding +1 votes, and no -1 vote, the
vote has passed.
Also, vote discussion has shown that the first rule should be updated to
mandate the name starts with "arrow." instead of "org.apache.arrow.".
The next step will be to prepare a PR adding these rule
+1 (non-binding) and preference for the "arrow." namespace.
Rok
ow use in the custom_metadata fields. For example,
> ARROW:extension:name.
Thanks,
--
kou
In <332e3d0a-5765-198d-d4ce-c0ad20443...@python.org>
"[VOTE] Format: Rules and procedures for Canonical extension types" on Wed,
24 Aug 2022 17:24:19 +0200,
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
&
+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,
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
Le 25/08/2022 à 02:08, Weston Pace a écrit :
+1 (non-binding). This is maybe implied but I would add that
modification of extension types must also require a vote and should be
backwards compatible. Furthermore, extension types (particularly
those with extensive parameterization/serialization
+1 (non-binding). This is maybe implied but I would add that
modification of extension types must also require a vote and should be
backwards compatible. Furthermore, extension types (particularly
those with extensive parameterization/serialization should discuss how
future additions would be mad
I agree with Micah. Moreover, adding "org.apache" does not disambiguate
anything; "arrow" should be the reserved namespace for canonical
(extension) types.
Neal
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 12:31 PM Micah Kornfield
wrote:
> Sorry for beling late. I'm -0.5 on "org.apache.arrow." given people
> previ
Sorry for beling late. I'm -0.5 on "org.apache.arrow." given people
previously raising naming concerns about having "apache" and "arrow"
coupled together.I think just "arrow" makes sense here.
I also am not sure about relaxing the 2 language requirement for simple
implementations, but feel le
+1 (binding)
Just to check, these rules will presumably be committed into the documentation
as well?
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022, at 11:24, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose we vote for the following set of rules for
> registering well-known ("canonical") extension types.
>
>
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 maintained in a separate
document under the format specifications directory:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/m
12 matches
Mail list logo
