Sorry for the double email. "here [1]" should reference https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/milestone/3.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023, at 14:16, David Li wrote: > Thanks for bringing this up. My thought is: > > - We are treating ADBC's APIs as a specification, so we should vote in > general. > - The changes here are minimal and don't introduce any compatibility > concerns - they just add more constant definitions - so I say we vote > and just merge them into main, instead of adding more friction. > > There is a set of more major proposals I have begun collecting here [1] > that would require some work to maintain compatibility. For those, I > think we would want to do development on a branch, then vote and merge > them and bump the specification version. And ideally, bundle these > changes and any others together to avoid introducing a lot of work for > implementations to maintain compatibility. > > -David > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023, at 11:44, Matt Topol wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> I've filed a PR with ADBC (https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/pull/316) >> to add some more explicitly defined canonical options. This then leads the >> an interesting question that should be posed: >> >> For changes like this in general along with other potential updates, should >> we do a series of small votes that are merged into a branch and then >> bundled up into a v1.1.0 release? Or just do votes to merge to main and >> then bump to v1.0.1? Or some other combination of ideas? As this is >> technically a change to the ADBC definitions, it should warrant some kind >> of release, but it might end up spammy to bump versions frequently for >> changes like this for now? >> >> Anyway, I figured it'd be good to open it up for discussion here and see >> what people's opinions on this are. >> >> Thanks all! >> >> --Matt
