+1 (binding) to add the new type
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:35 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> P.S. Copy and paste error on the plus 1 option from the flight vote?
>
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose a change to the Arrow format to support a new duration
> > type. Details below. Threads on mailing list around discussion.
> >
> >
> > // An absolute length of time unrelated to any calendar artifacts. For the
> > purposes
> > /// of Arrow Implementations, adding this value to a Timestamp ("t1")
> > naively (i.e. simply summing
> > /// the two number) is acceptable even though in some cases the resulting
> > Timestamp (t2) would
> > /// not account for leap-seconds during the elapsed time between "t1" and
> > "t2". Similarly, representing
> > /// the difference between two Unix timestamp is acceptable, but would
> > yield a value that is possibly a few seconds
> > /// off from the true elapsed time.
> > ///
> > /// The resolution defaults to
> > /// millisecond, but can be any of the other supported TimeUnit values as
> > /// with Timestamp and Time types. This type is always represented as
> > /// an 8-byte integer.
> > table DurationInterval {
> > unit: TimeUnit = MILLISECOND;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Please vote whether to accept the changes. The vote will be open
> > for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Accept these changes to the Flight protocol
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 Do not accept the changes because...
> >
