Option C. On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:53 PM Joris Peeters <joris.mg.peet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> C > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 8:39 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > Option C. > > > > > > Le 24/06/2021 à 21:24, Weston Pace a écrit : > > > > > > This proposal states that Arrow should define how to encode an Instant > > > into Arrow data. There are several ways this could happen, some which > > > change schema.fbs and some which do not. > > > --- > > > > > > For sample arguments (currently grouped as "for changing schema.fbs" > > > and "against changing schema.fbs") see [2]. For a detailed definition > > > of the terms LocalDateTime, ZonedDateTime, and Instant and a > > > discussion of their semantics see [3]. > > > > > > Options: > > > > > > A) Do nothing, don’t introduce the nuance of “instants” into Arrow > > > B) Do nothing, but update the comments in schema.fbs to acknowledge > > > the existence of the concept and explain that implementations are free > > > to decide if/how to support the type. > > > C) Define timestamp with timezone “UTC” as “instant”. > > > D) Add a first class instant type to schema.fbs > > > E) Add instant as a canonical extension type > > > > > > Note: This is just a straw poll and the results will not be binding in > > > any way but will help craft a future vote. For example, if the > > > plurality of votes goes to C but a majority of votes is spread across > > > A & B then some flavor of A/B would likely be pursued. > > > > > > Vote for as many options as you would like. > > > > > > I will summarize and send out the results in 72 hours. > > > > > > --
