+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:03 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:35 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > As discussed on the mailing list [1] I would like to add a "bit width" > > field to our Decimal metadata to allow for supporting different > > Decimal physical sizes other than 128-bit (where 32- and 64-bit > > representations are relatively common) without requiring that we add a > > new value to the Type enum on Schema.fbs, which would be rather > > unsightly. > > > > The PR with the new field is at [2]. We may make modifications to the > > language in comments but this vote is whether to accept the addition > > of this field. > > > > For clarity, this change is non-breaking and fully backwards > > compatible. The field ensures that current libraries will be able to > > determine if a future library version has sent data that uses a bit > > width other than 128. > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > [ ] +1 Accept addition of Decimal::bitWidth Flatbuffers field > > [ ] +0 > > [ ] -1 Do not accept addition because... > > > > [1]: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r97eecb373f5ea5f1c65a6f061c75af1ef7ac460f722f4c98a5c70dc2%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E > > [2]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7321 > >
