The only difficulty I can think of is that we will need to remove the python directory from the source tarball when we build it. Shouldn't be a big problem.
rb On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:08 PM Matt Cheah <mch...@palantir.com> wrote: > I’m wondering how significant the maintenance burden is for maintaining > two release cycles from the same repository? I would imagine that it would > be less burden concentrated in one place if we had separate repositories at > least to start with. Then when we have confidence in the readiness of the > Python work we can merge it into Iceberg proper and have the release > publish both versions. > > > > -Matt Cheah > > > > *From: *Daniel Weeks <daniel.c.we...@gmail.com> > *Reply-To: *"dev@iceberg.apache.org" <dev@iceberg.apache.org> > *Date: *Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 1:47 PM > *To: *"dev@iceberg.apache.org" <dev@iceberg.apache.org>, Ryan Blue < > rb...@netflix.com> > *Subject: *Re: [DISCUSS] Python implementation > > > > I agree with this approach. > > > > Since this is an entirely new implementation for python, it makes more > sense to take the initial version (pending any additional review/comments) > and then continue to iterate from that point. It would be very difficult > to break up into smaller commits and work through incrementally without > adding a lot of value (though going forward we should lean into more > incremental contributions). > > > > I do think that Matt brings up some good points and initially I would lean > into keeping a single repo and if we find there are more contributions in > other languages that we reconsider separating the repos to keep them from > impacting releases. > > > > Also, want to cal lout a huge thanks to Ted for all the work they did to > contribute to this and Uwe for reviewing. > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 12:26 PM Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.invalid> > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > One of our contributors, Ted, has done a lot of work on an initial python > implementation and Uwe was kind enough to review it. Here's the PR: > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-iceberg/pull/54 [github.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Diceberg_pull_54&d=DwMFaQ&c=izlc9mHr637UR4lpLEZLFFS3Vn2UXBrZ4tFb6oOnmz8&r=hzwIMNQ9E99EMYGuqHI0kXhVbvX3nU3OSDadUnJxjAs&m=2fd2BMX_B8e6HdkY_gBWAhTDBM6ub2f3wG910jf-Itw&s=ta9z2acUFCvQRc67MnbJypCG90OL1VuMFEmnd0ymOVA&e=> > > > > Because this is a brand-new implementation, the PR is huge: 157 new files. > That makes it really tough to review in depth, and also really time > consuming to update and maintain. What I suggest is committing the PR as-is > now that it has passed a round of reviews. Then we can improve it in > smaller pull requests. > > > > Are there any objections to this plan or other thoughts? > > > > I think that the python implementation would not be included in the first > Apache Iceberg release. I would prefer to release the python implementation > on a separate release cycle so that Java blockers don't prevent a Python > bug fix and vice versa. > > > > rb > > > > -- > > Ryan Blue > > Software Engineer > > Netflix > > -- Ryan Blue Software Engineer Netflix
