I've reproduced the dask failures and am looking into them now (it's around index metadata).
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm just executing the current master locally against turbodbc and dask. > Sadly it seems that the unit tests in both projects are breaking. I'm > going to have a look at what happens in both. We should sort out these > problems before the release. > > Uwe > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017, at 08:06 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: > > hi folks, > > > > I wanted to start a coordination thread to stay on top of the > > remaining items to be able to get to a release-able state for 0.8.0, > > by end of this week or beginning of next week with any luck. There are > > a number of housekeeping items we are working on the C++/Python side, > > but some of these are non-essential, so we'll try to get done as much > > as we can. > > > > Here are the major things that seem to be in flight: > > > > Format changes > > -------------- > > > > * ARROW-1785 Removing VectorLayout from metadata > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1297 > > > > Other Java changes > > ------------------ > > * ARROW-1864 Upgrading Netty to 4.1.x > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1376 > > > > Other needed C++ changes > > -------------------------- > > * ARROW-1882: Restoring DictionaryBuilder > > > > Changes under discussion > > ------------------------ > > * ARROW-1816 Possible change to Timestamp class structure > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1330 > > * ARROW-1866 / ARROW-1815 Handling of NonNullableMapVector > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1371 > > > > Other changes in TODO > > --------------------- > > * ARROW-1868: Change vector getMinorType to use MinorType instead of > > Types.MinorType > > * ARROW-1867: Add BitVector APIs from old vector class > > * ARROW-1818: Examine Java Dependencies > > > > Out of these, the ARROW-1785 VectorLayout removal and the Netty > > upgrade are probably the most critical -- these should be ready to be > > merged once they've been sufficiently reviewed. What else is essential > > / cannot fall through the cracks? If we are not able to arrive at > > consensus on all other items, I would prefer not to delay the release > > any further. > > > > Thanks > > Wes >
