release: cut v0.74.0 - #23
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Promote [Unreleased] entries to [0.74.0] – 2026-05-12 in advance of tagging v0.74.0 on this repo. One informational §3.4.4 addition: the "Streaming consumption" paragraph pinning the contract for row-by-row @table consumption (#22). Spec-side counterpart to protowire-go v0.74.0 (#10), which ships pxf.TableReader. No grammar change, no wire change.
trendvidia
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2026
trendvidia
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2026
…FC-001 §8.5) (#110) * spec: no pxf.* dual-emission — @required/@default are carrier-only (RFC-001 §8.5) Resolves the #92 decision as carrier-only: - §5.2/§8.5: @required/@default lower exclusively to the 50400 carrier; the compiler MUST NOT synthesize (pxf.required)/ (pxf.default) from them. Brackets and annotations are disjoint surfaces, neither back-filled from the other; coexistence allowed, MAY warn on conflicting values, MUST NOT reconcile. - Appendix A migration notes: legacy-option consumers see only bracket-written options — upgrade consumers before migrating schemas. - Draft -01 Coexistence section: drops the 'lowers to set both' claim, states the disjoint-surface rule and migration ordering. - STABILITY.md: corrects the 'same descriptor shape' claim; new 'No legacy dual-emission' bullet declaring v1.1 legacy-option readers unsupported against annotation-form schemas. - Fixture 04 header: dual-emission expectation replaced with the disjoint-lowering expectation. Ratifies shipped protocompile M1 carrier-only emission as-is; the #33/#34 dual-emission acceptance boxes are struck in the resolution record. * docs: record #23 carrier-only resolution (GH #92, PR #110); strike #33/#34 dual-emission boxes
This was referenced Jul 16, 2026
trendvidia
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2026
* spec: ratify RFC-001 (issue #56) Status Draft → Ratified (2026-07-16). §13 rows 13/14 now cite their tracking issues (GH #111, #112) — with those filed, every open question is either resolved in the RFC (S1: #11–#16; S2: #15 source grammar, #21 sensitivity, #35 path scheme; S3: #22 engine-expression scope, #23 no dual-emission) or tracked as a separate issue (GH #59, #66–#69, #103, #111, #112). All v1.2 surface is strictly additive; no locked decision blocks an existing port's roadmap (per-port adoption is M9+, gated on the conformance corpus). * docs: record #2 ratification (GH #56, PR #113)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Test plan