+1 from me. Keeping the code in a single repo makes sense but no need to artificially keep versions numbers consistent between the sub-crates.
Andy. On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 10:28 PM Chao Sun <sunc...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > This is related to an earlier email I sent regarding separating the Rust > implementation into sub crates. See some early discussions in this PR > [1]. As we could have multiple crates for the project in future (e.g., > arrow, parquet, orc, gandiva), I'm wondering whether we can keep different > versions for these crates. For instance, the parquet crate use to have > version 0.4.2 before merging into arrow, and I think it's better to > maintain the continuity there. > > Another thing is about release cycles. I understand that it is best to keep > the release cycles for these crates the same as arrow's. However, it's > possible in future that we may need a minor release for a critical bug fix > of a particular crate, and to follow the overall release process for that > seems like an overkill and not quite feasible. > > Therefore, I'm proposing to: > 1. allow different versions for sub-crates. > 2. follow the overall release schedule, but maintain the flexibility of > doing separate releases when necessary. > > Thought? > > Chao > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3291#issuecomment-450950275 >
