You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@parquet.apache.org by Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> on 2017/01/24 14:42:18 UTC
Making parquet-cpp release?
hi folks,
Since Uwe has set up the release-making bits recently, and the API is
reasonably stable after the refactor to depend on libarrow, I propose
we go ahead and make a first official parquet-cpp source release.
I propose that we call this release 0.5.0 instead of 0.1.0 to reflect
the maturity of the project. If anyone has any objections or an
alternate release number, feel free to suggest it. My hope would be we
are on a trajectory for parquet-cpp 1.0.0 within 1 years' time.
Any more patches we need to write before the release? I know Uwe is
working on PARQUET-834, so we can wait for that or follow up with
another release within a months' time or so.
Thanks,
Wes
Re: Making parquet-cpp release?
Posted by Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>.
Sounds great! How about starting an issue for it so we can linked blockers.
That's what we usually do for Parquet MR releases.
rb
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Deepak Majeti <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I am also +1 for a parquet-cpp release.
> I just added PARQUET-838. It's patch should be in the release too.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hi Julien -- you make a good point. It might make more sense to start
> > at 1.0.0. Let me know if there are other opinions.
> >
> > - Wes
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net> wrote:
> > > +1 on making a parquet-cpp release.
> > > I don’t have a strong opinion about the starting version number and
> will
> > defer to the main parquet-cpp contributors.
> > >
> > > That said, here is my 2 cents (purely FYI):
> > > My experience is that giving absolute meaning to version numbers is
> very
> > subjective and can get in the way. (absolute meaning the version number
> > quantifies the progress of the project)
> > > For example, Starting at 0.5 kind of implies 1.0 follows 0.9 and it
> > contains twice as much as 0.5.
> > > Then we tend to say things like “but do we have enough to make a
> > release?” when a release should just be a pointer to a stable point in
> the
> > project.
> > > I’m not against starting at 0.5 but we should try not to convey to much
> > meaning in the version number related to the progress/increase in
> features.
> > >
> > > Julien
> > >
> > >> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> hi folks,
> > >>
> > >> Since Uwe has set up the release-making bits recently, and the API is
> > >> reasonably stable after the refactor to depend on libarrow, I propose
> > >> we go ahead and make a first official parquet-cpp source release.
> > >>
> > >> I propose that we call this release 0.5.0 instead of 0.1.0 to reflect
> > >> the maturity of the project. If anyone has any objections or an
> > >> alternate release number, feel free to suggest it. My hope would be we
> > >> are on a trajectory for parquet-cpp 1.0.0 within 1 years' time.
> > >>
> > >> Any more patches we need to write before the release? I know Uwe is
> > >> working on PARQUET-834, so we can wait for that or follow up with
> > >> another release within a months' time or so.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Wes
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> regards,
> Deepak Majeti
>
--
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix
Re: Making parquet-cpp release?
Posted by Deepak Majeti <ma...@gmail.com>.
I am also +1 for a parquet-cpp release.
I just added PARQUET-838. It's patch should be in the release too.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi Julien -- you make a good point. It might make more sense to start
> at 1.0.0. Let me know if there are other opinions.
>
> - Wes
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net> wrote:
> > +1 on making a parquet-cpp release.
> > I don’t have a strong opinion about the starting version number and will
> defer to the main parquet-cpp contributors.
> >
> > That said, here is my 2 cents (purely FYI):
> > My experience is that giving absolute meaning to version numbers is very
> subjective and can get in the way. (absolute meaning the version number
> quantifies the progress of the project)
> > For example, Starting at 0.5 kind of implies 1.0 follows 0.9 and it
> contains twice as much as 0.5.
> > Then we tend to say things like “but do we have enough to make a
> release?” when a release should just be a pointer to a stable point in the
> project.
> > I’m not against starting at 0.5 but we should try not to convey to much
> meaning in the version number related to the progress/increase in features.
> >
> > Julien
> >
> >> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> hi folks,
> >>
> >> Since Uwe has set up the release-making bits recently, and the API is
> >> reasonably stable after the refactor to depend on libarrow, I propose
> >> we go ahead and make a first official parquet-cpp source release.
> >>
> >> I propose that we call this release 0.5.0 instead of 0.1.0 to reflect
> >> the maturity of the project. If anyone has any objections or an
> >> alternate release number, feel free to suggest it. My hope would be we
> >> are on a trajectory for parquet-cpp 1.0.0 within 1 years' time.
> >>
> >> Any more patches we need to write before the release? I know Uwe is
> >> working on PARQUET-834, so we can wait for that or follow up with
> >> another release within a months' time or so.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Wes
> >
>
--
regards,
Deepak Majeti
Re: Making parquet-cpp release?
Posted by Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>.
hi Julien -- you make a good point. It might make more sense to start
at 1.0.0. Let me know if there are other opinions.
- Wes
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net> wrote:
> +1 on making a parquet-cpp release.
> I don’t have a strong opinion about the starting version number and will defer to the main parquet-cpp contributors.
>
> That said, here is my 2 cents (purely FYI):
> My experience is that giving absolute meaning to version numbers is very subjective and can get in the way. (absolute meaning the version number quantifies the progress of the project)
> For example, Starting at 0.5 kind of implies 1.0 follows 0.9 and it contains twice as much as 0.5.
> Then we tend to say things like “but do we have enough to make a release?” when a release should just be a pointer to a stable point in the project.
> I’m not against starting at 0.5 but we should try not to convey to much meaning in the version number related to the progress/increase in features.
>
> Julien
>
>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> hi folks,
>>
>> Since Uwe has set up the release-making bits recently, and the API is
>> reasonably stable after the refactor to depend on libarrow, I propose
>> we go ahead and make a first official parquet-cpp source release.
>>
>> I propose that we call this release 0.5.0 instead of 0.1.0 to reflect
>> the maturity of the project. If anyone has any objections or an
>> alternate release number, feel free to suggest it. My hope would be we
>> are on a trajectory for parquet-cpp 1.0.0 within 1 years' time.
>>
>> Any more patches we need to write before the release? I know Uwe is
>> working on PARQUET-834, so we can wait for that or follow up with
>> another release within a months' time or so.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Wes
>
Re: Making parquet-cpp release?
Posted by Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net>.
+1 on making a parquet-cpp release.
I don’t have a strong opinion about the starting version number and will defer to the main parquet-cpp contributors.
That said, here is my 2 cents (purely FYI):
My experience is that giving absolute meaning to version numbers is very subjective and can get in the way. (absolute meaning the version number quantifies the progress of the project)
For example, Starting at 0.5 kind of implies 1.0 follows 0.9 and it contains twice as much as 0.5.
Then we tend to say things like “but do we have enough to make a release?” when a release should just be a pointer to a stable point in the project.
I’m not against starting at 0.5 but we should try not to convey to much meaning in the version number related to the progress/increase in features.
Julien
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hi folks,
>
> Since Uwe has set up the release-making bits recently, and the API is
> reasonably stable after the refactor to depend on libarrow, I propose
> we go ahead and make a first official parquet-cpp source release.
>
> I propose that we call this release 0.5.0 instead of 0.1.0 to reflect
> the maturity of the project. If anyone has any objections or an
> alternate release number, feel free to suggest it. My hope would be we
> are on a trajectory for parquet-cpp 1.0.0 within 1 years' time.
>
> Any more patches we need to write before the release? I know Uwe is
> working on PARQUET-834, so we can wait for that or follow up with
> another release within a months' time or so.
>
> Thanks,
> Wes