+1
Thanks for the discussion everyone!
Rok
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:29 PM Dewey Dunnington
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)!
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 9:59 AM Nic Crane wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 12:41, Alenka Frim .invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am starting
+1 (non-binding)!
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 9:59 AM Nic Crane wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 12:41, Alenka Frim
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am starting a new voting thread with this email as the first voting
> > thread [1] opened up new
> > comments and suggestions and we wanted to tak
+1
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 12:41, Alenka Frim
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am starting a new voting thread with this email as the first voting
> thread [1] opened up new
> comments and suggestions and we wanted to take time to see how that
> evolves.
>
> *I would like to propose we vote on adding the fi
Hi all,
I am starting a new voting thread with this email as the first voting
thread [1] opened up new
comments and suggestions and we wanted to take time to see how that evolves.
*I would like to propose we vote on adding the fixed shape tensor canonical
extension type*
*with the following speci
Hi Yevgeny,
It is great you are thinking of using Arrow.
> - The problems are around the abstraction for the extension types. While I
understand that the underlying storage needs to be supported in the library
we don't have a way for extensions to provide its own builder which means
the user need
No problem Kevin. Thank you for sharing the information with your
colleagues.
All comments are much appreciated.
As there were no additional comments/suggestions to the spec itself, I will
open up another voting thread today.
Thanks all!
Alenka
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:11 AM Kevin Gurney wrot
