With 7 +1 votes and 0 -1 votes the proposal is approved. Thank you to
everyone who voted.
I will update the PR for the specification change from draft status to
ready to merge. I will then follow up with getting the client
implementations ready to merge.
Thanks again,
Adam Curtis
On Fri, Mar 22
+1
In
"[VOTE] Stateless prepared statements in FlightSQL" on Wed, 20 Mar 2024
19:48:38 -0400,
Adam C wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose a change to the FlightSQL specification as
> originally described in this Github issue [1] by Andrew Lamb. The
> specification change would allo
21, 2024 8:40:10 AM
> To: dev@arrow.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stateless prepared statements in FlightSQL
>
> +1
>
> Thank you Adam!
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, at 10:07, Andrew Lamb wrote:
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > I reviewed the spec proposal and t
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks for the work on this Adam and Andrew!
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
From: David Li
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 8:40:10 AM
To: dev@arrow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Stateless prepared statements in FlightS
+1
Regards
JB
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:48 AM Adam C wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose a change to the FlightSQL specification as
> originally described in this Github issue [1] by Andrew Lamb. The
> specification change would allow servers to support prepared
> statements with para
+1
Thank you Adam!
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, at 10:07, Andrew Lamb wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> I reviewed the spec proposal and the rust implementation and I think they
> look good to go. I am not as confident on the golang implementation, but
> the comments on the Go PR look like there are no objecti
+1 (binding)
I'm gonna give the Go impl another review and once over, but in general it
looks good and the Idea is sound.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 10:12 AM Andrew Lamb wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> I reviewed the spec proposal and the rust implementation and I think they
> look good to go. I am not as
+1 (binding)
I reviewed the spec proposal and the rust implementation and I think they
look good to go. I am not as confident on the golang implementation, but
the comments on the Go PR look like there are no objections.
Thank you for your work driving this forward
Andrew
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 a
