Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PARQUET-2488: Use term row consistently in parquet.thrift #256

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 1, 2024

Conversation

alamb
Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb commented May 31, 2024

As discussed on the mailing list (thread link) , parquet.thrift uses the terms record and row to mean the same thing, which could cause confusion

The consensus on the mailing list was to use the term "row".

This PR proposes changing parquet.thrift so it only uses the term 'row'

Jira

Commits

  • My commits all reference Jira issues in their subject lines. In addition, my commits follow the guidelines from "How to write a good git commit message":
    1. Subject is separated from body by a blank line
    2. Subject is limited to 50 characters (not including Jira issue reference)
    3. Subject does not end with a period
    4. Subject uses the imperative mood ("add", not "adding")
    5. Body wraps at 72 characters
    6. Body explains "what" and "why", not "how"

Documentation

  • In case of new functionality, my PR adds documentation that describes how to use it.
    • All the public functions and the classes in the PR contain Javadoc that explain what it does

@alamb alamb changed the title PARQUET-2488: Use term row consistently in parquet.thrift PARQUET-2488: Use term row consistently in parquet.thrift May 31, 2024
@emkornfield emkornfield merged commit e91ab5e into apache:master Jun 1, 2024
3 checks passed
@alamb alamb deleted the alamb/standardize_to_row branch June 1, 2024 09:46
@alamb
Copy link
Contributor Author

alamb commented Jun 1, 2024

Thank you @julienledem and @emkornfield

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants