For the record, I don't think we should hold a major release hostage if we aren't able to complete various feature milestones in time. Since it's been about 5-6 weeks since 0.14.0 we're coming close to the desired 8-10 week timeline for major releases, so if we need to have 0.16.0 prior to 1.0.0, I think that is OK also.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:45 AM Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:43 AM Micah Kornfield <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > is there anything else that has come up that > > > definitely needs to happen before we can release again? > > > > We need to decide on a way forward for LargeList, LargeBinary, etc, types... > > > > Do these need to be dependent on the 64-bit array length discussion? > They seem somewhat orthogonal to me. If we have to release 0.15.0 > without the Java side of these, that's OK with me, since reaching > format implementation completeness is more of a 1.0.0 concern > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:27 PM Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > hi folks, > > > > > > Since there have been a number of fairly serious issues (e.g. > > > ARROW-6060) since 0.14.1 that have been fixed I think we should start > > > planning of the next major release. Note that we still have some > > > format-related work (the Flatbuffers alignment issue) that ought to be > > > resolved (not a small task since it affects 4 or 5 implementations), > > > but aside from that, is there anything else that has come up that > > > definitely needs to happen before we can release again? > > > > > > I would say cutting a release somewhere around the US Labor Day > > > holiday (~the week after or so) would be called for. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Wes > > >
