Yes, I agree with raising the issue to the board.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 8:31 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > > I agree. Especially given that the constraints imposed by Infra don't > help solving the problem. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > Le 08/10/2019 à 15:02, Uwe L. Korn a écrit : > > I'm not sure what qualifies for "board attention" but it seems that CI is a > > critical problem in Apache projects, not just Arrow. Should we raise that? > > > > Uwe > > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019, at 12:00 AM, Wes McKinney wrote: > >> Here is a start for our Q3 board report > >> > >> ## Description: > >> The mission of Apache Arrow is the creation and maintenance of software > >> related > >> to columnar in-memory processing and data interchange > >> > >> ## Issues: > >> There are no issues requiring board attention at this time > >> > >> ## Membership Data: > >> * Apache Arrow was founded 2016-01-19 (4 years ago) > >> * There are currently 48 committers and 28 PMC members in this project. > >> * The Committer-to-PMC ratio is roughly 3:2. > >> > >> Community changes, past quarter: > >> - Micah Kornfield was added to the PMC on 2019-08-21 > >> - Sebastien Binet was added to the PMC on 2019-08-21 > >> - Ben Kietzman was added as committer on 2019-09-07 > >> - David Li was added as committer on 2019-08-30 > >> - Kenta Murata was added as committer on 2019-09-05 > >> - Neal Richardson was added as committer on 2019-09-05 > >> - Praveen Kumar was added as committer on 2019-07-14 > >> > >> ## Project Activity: > >> > >> * The project has just made a 0.15.0 release. > >> * We are discussing ways to make the Arrow libraries as accessible as > >> possible > >> to downstream projects for minimal use cases while allowing the > >> development > >> of more comprehensive "standard libraries" with larger dependency stacks > >> in > >> the project > >> * We plan to make a 1.0.0 release as our next major release, at which time > >> we > >> will declare that the Arrow binary protocol is stable with forward and > >> backward compatibility guarantees > >> * We are struggling with Continuous Integration scalability as the project > >> has > >> definitely outgrown what Travis CI and Appveyor can do for us. We are > >> exploring alternative solutions such as Buildbot, Buildkite (see > >> INFRA-19217), and GitHub Actions to provide a path to migrate away from > >> Travis CI / Appveyor > >> > >> ## Community Health: > >> > >> * The community is overall healthy, with the aforementioned concerns > >> around CI > >> scalability. New contributors frequently take notice of the long build > >> queue > >> times when submitting pull requests. > >>
