OK -- Micah -- I think it's fine to change from DurationInterval ->
Duration if no one else chimes in here by tomorrow or so
On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 5:02 AM Jacques Nadeau wrote:
>
> yeah, I think Duration is better than DurationInterval
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 3:35 AM Wes McKinney wrote:
>
>
yeah, I think Duration is better than DurationInterval
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 3:35 AM Wes McKinney wrote:
> I've just reviewed the format and C++ changes in
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3644 which look good to me modulo
> minor comments.
>
> Can someone take a look at the Java changes
I've just reviewed the format and C++ changes in
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3644 which look good to me modulo
minor comments.
Can someone take a look at the Java changes soon so we move this
toward completion?
One question came up of whether "DurationInterval" is the name we
want. It mi
OK, I think https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3644 is no ready to
review.
It includes Java implementation of DurationInterval and C++ implementations
of DurationInterval and the original interval types. I added documentation
to Schema.fbs regarding the original interval types (TL;DR; YEAR_MONT
Sorry for the type OK, I think https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3644 is
now ready to review.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:56 PM Micah Kornfield
wrote:
> OK, I think https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3644 is no ready to
> review.
>
> It includes Java implementation of DurationInterval and C++
The vote carries with 4 binding +1 votes.
Micah, what are the next steps?
Are You going to finalize the PR?
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 11:13 AM Uwe L. Korn wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2019, at 2:44 AM, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > In
> > "[VOTE] Add new DurationInter
+1 (binding)
On Sat, Apr 6, 2019, at 2:44 AM, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> In
> "[VOTE] Add new DurationInterval Type to Arrow Format" on Wed, 3 Apr
> 2019 07:59:56 -0700,
> Jacques Nadeau wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose a change to the Arrow format to support a new duration
>
+1 (binding)
In
"[VOTE] Add new DurationInterval Type to Arrow Format" on Wed, 3 Apr 2019
07:59:56 -0700,
Jacques Nadeau wrote:
> I'd like to propose a change to the Arrow format to support a new duration
> type. Details below. Threads on mailing list around discussion.
>
>
> // An absol
I think this needs another PMC member to way in? Would mind taking a look?
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 9:21 AM Jacques Nadeau wrote:
> Yes, copy and paste error:
>
> +1 to add the new type (binding)
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 8:36 AM Wes McKinney wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding) to add the new type
> >
>
Yes, copy and paste error:
+1 to add the new type (binding)
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 8:36 AM Wes McKinney wrote:
> +1 (binding) to add the new type
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:35 AM Micah Kornfield
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (non-binding).
> >
> > P.S. Copy and paste error on the plus 1 option from t
+1 (binding) to add the new type
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:35 AM Micah Kornfield wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> P.S. Copy and paste error on the plus 1 option from the flight vote?
>
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019, Jacques Nadeau wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose a change to the Arrow format to
+1 (non-binding).
P.S. Copy and paste error on the plus 1 option from the flight vote?
On Wednesday, April 3, 2019, Jacques Nadeau wrote:
> I'd like to propose a change to the Arrow format to support a new duration
> type. Details below. Threads on mailing list around discussion.
>
>
> // An ab
12 matches
Mail list logo
