I'll test the PR tomorrow (Friday, until 15:00 UTC). Thanks for the quick fix!
@Wes Might be doable, I'll check how we can improve there. Sorry for catching this problem that late. I'm totally fine with the "no veto" policy. It's a bug for which no test existed beforehand, and a behavior / feature that was just implicitly assumed to exist (fork stability). So the regression kinda "normal". Marco On August 2, 2018 8:40:05 PM GMT+02:00, Phillip Cloud <[email protected]> wrote: >Marco, what would be even better is if you would test your application >against Antoine's PR before it gets merged. > >On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 2:37 PM Phillip Cloud <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'll cut another one. Can someone review Antoine's PR, like ASAP, so >that >> I can cut another RC? >> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 2:32 PM Wes McKinney <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >>> -1 >>> >>> It's up to Phillip whether he wants to cancel the RC, but note that >>> releases cannot be vetoed. >>> >>> @Marco, thanks for reporting -- is there a process which could have >>> surfaced this issue sooner (e.g. testing your application regularly >>> against master)? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Wes >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Le 02/08/2018 à 20:15, Li Jin a écrit : >>> >> Antoine, >>> >> >>> >> Do you think we should fail this RC because of Arrow-2963? >>> > >>> > It's a regression, so ideally it should be fixed. >>> > Furthermore, the issue can be reproduced quite easily in Python >with the >>> > (popular) multiprocessing package. >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > >>> > Antoine. >>> >>
