I would be happy with this approach. Thank you for the suggestion This hybrid approach of both arrow and arrow2 in the same repo seems better to me than separate repos.
What I really care about is ensuring we don't have two crates/APIs indefinitely -- as long as we are continually making progress towards unification that is what is important to me. Andrew On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:40 PM Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com> wrote: > Apologies for being late to this discussion. > > There is a hybrid option to consider here where we add the arrow2 code into > the arrow crate as a separate module, so we release one crate containing > the "old" API (which we can mark as deprecated) as well as the new API. > Java did a similar thing a long time ago with "java.io" versus "java.nio" > (new IO). > > I agree that the versioning wouldn't be ideal, but this seems like it might > be a pragmatic compromise? > > Thanks, > > Andy. > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 5:41 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote: > > > What I meant is that when you decide arrow2 is suitable for release to > > existing arrow users, I stand ready to help you incorporate it into > arrow. > > > > All the feedback I have heard so far from the rest of the community is > that > > we are ready. One might even say we are anxious to do so :) > > > > Andrew > > >
