You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@arrow.apache.org by Matt Topol <zo...@gmail.com> on 2023/01/11 16:44:59 UTC
DISCUSS: ADBC More Canonical Options
Hey all,
I've filed a PR with ADBC (https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/pull/316)
to add some more explicitly defined canonical options. This then leads the
an interesting question that should be posed:
For changes like this in general along with other potential updates, should
we do a series of small votes that are merged into a branch and then
bundled up into a v1.1.0 release? Or just do votes to merge to main and
then bump to v1.0.1? Or some other combination of ideas? As this is
technically a change to the ADBC definitions, it should warrant some kind
of release, but it might end up spammy to bump versions frequently for
changes like this for now?
Anyway, I figured it'd be good to open it up for discussion here and see
what people's opinions on this are.
Thanks all!
--Matt
Re: DISCUSS: ADBC More Canonical Options
Posted by David Li <li...@apache.org>.
Sorry for the double email. "here [1]" should reference https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/milestone/3.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023, at 14:16, David Li wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up. My thought is:
>
> - We are treating ADBC's APIs as a specification, so we should vote in
> general.
> - The changes here are minimal and don't introduce any compatibility
> concerns - they just add more constant definitions - so I say we vote
> and just merge them into main, instead of adding more friction.
>
> There is a set of more major proposals I have begun collecting here [1]
> that would require some work to maintain compatibility. For those, I
> think we would want to do development on a branch, then vote and merge
> them and bump the specification version. And ideally, bundle these
> changes and any others together to avoid introducing a lot of work for
> implementations to maintain compatibility.
>
> -David
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023, at 11:44, Matt Topol wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I've filed a PR with ADBC (https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/pull/316)
>> to add some more explicitly defined canonical options. This then leads the
>> an interesting question that should be posed:
>>
>> For changes like this in general along with other potential updates, should
>> we do a series of small votes that are merged into a branch and then
>> bundled up into a v1.1.0 release? Or just do votes to merge to main and
>> then bump to v1.0.1? Or some other combination of ideas? As this is
>> technically a change to the ADBC definitions, it should warrant some kind
>> of release, but it might end up spammy to bump versions frequently for
>> changes like this for now?
>>
>> Anyway, I figured it'd be good to open it up for discussion here and see
>> what people's opinions on this are.
>>
>> Thanks all!
>>
>> --Matt
Re: DISCUSS: ADBC More Canonical Options
Posted by David Li <li...@apache.org>.
Thanks for bringing this up. My thought is:
- We are treating ADBC's APIs as a specification, so we should vote in general.
- The changes here are minimal and don't introduce any compatibility concerns - they just add more constant definitions - so I say we vote and just merge them into main, instead of adding more friction.
There is a set of more major proposals I have begun collecting here [1] that would require some work to maintain compatibility. For those, I think we would want to do development on a branch, then vote and merge them and bump the specification version. And ideally, bundle these changes and any others together to avoid introducing a lot of work for implementations to maintain compatibility.
-David
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023, at 11:44, Matt Topol wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've filed a PR with ADBC (https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/pull/316)
> to add some more explicitly defined canonical options. This then leads the
> an interesting question that should be posed:
>
> For changes like this in general along with other potential updates, should
> we do a series of small votes that are merged into a branch and then
> bundled up into a v1.1.0 release? Or just do votes to merge to main and
> then bump to v1.0.1? Or some other combination of ideas? As this is
> technically a change to the ADBC definitions, it should warrant some kind
> of release, but it might end up spammy to bump versions frequently for
> changes like this for now?
>
> Anyway, I figured it'd be good to open it up for discussion here and see
> what people's opinions on this are.
>
> Thanks all!
>
> --Matt