Sorry, I think you misunderstood this article.

When the author is talking about rolling back his changes, it's not referring to a database, but a version of his library. If someone tried used his new version, I assume the only thing that would have gone wrong is that their code wouldn't work because Pandas didn't support the format.

This article is about how a new version of the Parquet format hasn't been widely adopted, and so now the Parquer community is in a split state where different forces are pulling the direction of the format in two directions, and this happens to be caused by two different areas of focus that don't need to be tightly coupled together.

I don't see how the problems the article discusses relate to the reliability of software.

▲

kristianp 3 days ago | parent [-]

I think the gp understood the article. They are talking about the people's software breaking when the author switched his software to v2 of Parquet.

	▲	atombender 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		This is a small Java library used for data science/engineering purposes, and the upgrade would stop it from being able to read Parquet 2 files. If that causes an "unplanned enterprise-wide data unavailability event", that is the fault of the application developer that chose to upgrade their dependencies, not the library author. Furthermore, you could say the same things about any third-party library in the world, so drawing the connection to big vendors like Oracle is a non sequitur at best.