-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
GH-35084: [Docs][Format] Add how to change format specification #35174
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs |
|
|
|
Revision: e3f9af0fa3ad7460a6146e506cc0ce8e5732b51c Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-2656904870
|
docs/source/format/Changing.rst
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
| DISCUSS process is a process to discuss the format changes in | |
| DISCUSS process is a process to discuss capability of the format changes in |
Discussion is to gather opinion about the new format change suggestion, and see whether if it is capable to be adopted.
docs/source/format/Changing.rst
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
| VOTE process is a process to tell whether we have reached | |
| consensus. We can start a vote for the format changes after we reach | |
| VOTE process is a process to poll whether we have decided to adapt changes or not. | |
| We can start a vote for the format changes after we reach |
Current text only tells that when the VOTE starts, there are consensus. But it is happening when DISCUSS reach the consensus. And I believe the VOTE process is the action to finalize the adoption. So I tried to text it that way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have read through the texts.
Few sentence seems missing detail information. So I have added the changes to be more descriptive.
|
cc @wjones127 for wording. |
docs/source/format/Changing.rst
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this follow the same rule of apache voting? For example, which vote is considered binding?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes.
"[VOTE][Format] Fixed shape tensor Canonical Extension Type" https://lists.apache.org/thread/f303yscj8gq4oggvvcbvf5zpo972l1kk is a recent example.
docs/source/format/Changing.rst
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How do we define a reference implementation is complete? For example, if a new data/array type is proposed, does the IPC, compute functions, and parquet module should be implemented as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we need to lay down hard rules. Below we link to https://arrow.apache.org/docs/status.html, which gives us a grid of implementations and their status. Which parts are relevant will depend on the feature IMO. For most new data types, I suspect what's important is IPC implementation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's ~up to the voters, effectively. I think it'd be hard to pin this down in text.
That said, this part is discussing whether the implementation is considered a reference Arrow implementation. Which is more about whether the the implementation is self-contained (as opposed to a binding) and ~completeness of the Arrow specification and development activity.
wjones127
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we can call the process just "discussion and voting", and mention the [VOTE] and [DISCUSS] tags where appropriate.
docs/source/format/Changing.rst
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we need to lay down hard rules. Below we link to https://arrow.apache.org/docs/status.html, which gives us a grid of implementations and their status. Which parts are relevant will depend on the feature IMO. For most new data types, I suspect what's important is IPC implementation.
westonpace
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for writing this up.
|
@yoshimotoyuk @wjones127 @westonpace Thanks for your suggestions! |
wjones127
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Two minor changes. Otherwise this looks good. Thanks for adding this @kou
642f6e5 to
784be05
Compare
|
Thanks! I've merged them. |
|
@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This is based on the discussion: [DISCUSS] Format changes: process and requirements https://lists.apache.org/thread/9t0pglrvxjhrt4r4xcsc1zmgmbtr8pxj
Co-authored-by: Will Jones <willjones127@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Weston Pace <weston.pace@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Will Jones <willjones127@gmail.com>
784be05 to
8693dd2
Compare
|
@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs |
|
Revision: a21b227 Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-ad4f16d624
|
|
The vote thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/jlc4wtt09rfszlzqdl55vrc4dxzscr4c |
|
Should something be added about documentation as well? Or is it implicit? |
|
I'm sorry but I can't understand what you intent. |
Everything under https://arrow.apache.org/docs/format/ |
alamb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me. I agree it might be nice to explicitly add something about updating the documentation as part of the format change, I can also see the argument for that being implicit.
|
Ah, I understand. OK. I've add a note for it: .. note::
We must update the corresponding documentation (files in
`<https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/main/docs/source/format>`_)
too.If anyone has a suggestion for wording, I appreciate it. (I'm not a native English speaker.) |
|
@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs |
|
Revision: dbd2c20 Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-026a10f6d6
|
|
The vote result: https://lists.apache.org/thread/ophn3b58gb4rmjow00d3zovox7vnhod2 I'll merge this. |
…apache#35174) ### Rationale for this change It's for easy to refer. ### What changes are included in this PR? This is based on the discussion: [DISCUSS] Format changes: process and requirements https://lists.apache.org/thread/9t0pglrvxjhrt4r4xcsc1zmgmbtr8pxj ### Are these changes tested? Yes. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes. * Closes: apache#35084 Lead-authored-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com> Co-authored-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@cozmixng.org> Co-authored-by: Will Jones <willjones127@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Weston Pace <weston.pace@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com>
…apache#35174) ### Rationale for this change It's for easy to refer. ### What changes are included in this PR? This is based on the discussion: [DISCUSS] Format changes: process and requirements https://lists.apache.org/thread/9t0pglrvxjhrt4r4xcsc1zmgmbtr8pxj ### Are these changes tested? Yes. ### Are there any user-facing changes? Yes. * Closes: apache#35084 Lead-authored-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com> Co-authored-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@cozmixng.org> Co-authored-by: Will Jones <willjones127@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Weston Pace <weston.pace@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com>
Rationale for this change
It's for easy to refer.
What changes are included in this PR?
This is based on the discussion:
[DISCUSS] Format changes: process and requirements
https://lists.apache.org/thread/9t0pglrvxjhrt4r4xcsc1zmgmbtr8pxj
Are these changes tested?
Yes.
Are there any user-facing changes?
Yes.