Hi, Basically, I agree with the proposal.
> reference implementation/support in Java and C++ How about "at least two native implementations" instead of "Java and C++"? Now, we have multiple native implementations: * C++ * C# * Go * Java * JavaScript * Rust So, we can choose at least two of them to run integration tests. Thanks, -- kou In <caka9qdnqj9bzrfg5apim1vohhn2-ndabxhuiw9jit6v_npv...@mail.gmail.com> "[DISCUSS] Format changes: process and requirements" on Sun, 17 Mar 2019 14:18:35 -0700, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > I want to bring up a concern I have with the recent changes to the format. > To me, part of the strength of the project is that you have multiple > bindings for Arrow the are cross-compatible and consistent. As such, I'd > like to propose the following process when dealing with format changes: > > - Format changes (files in /format), should go through a formal DISCUSS > and VOTE process as opposed to standard code review requirements. > - We should only merge changes to the format to master when they also > include reference implementation/support in Java and C++ and associated > integration tests. > > What do others think?
