If we expect that the release process may be less stable this time, should we bump up our target date for an RC, like to the 20th or 21st (two weeks from now)? That would give us more leeway to make sure we get a release out before the end of January.
Neal On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:02 PM Krisztián Szűcs <szucs.kriszt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds good to me. I'll help with the jira curation. > > Because of the recent CI migrations we'll need to be more thorough during > the verification, and I also expect minor issues during the release > process. > So I volunteer to be the RM if no one else wants to jump in. > > Thanks, Krisztian > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:26 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will > > work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release > > (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0 > > columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this > > back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical > > path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable? > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to > > > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done > > > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of > > > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't > > > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's > > > release 1.0.0 sooner. > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson > > > <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we > cast > > > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of > enumerating > > > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can > get it > > > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a > 0.17 > > > > release. > > > > > > > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as > > > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release to > 10 > > > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this > is an > > > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to > > > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we > have > > > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0? > > > > > > > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this > point? > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Neal > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cutl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out > with > > > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <liya.fa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jacques, > > > > > > > > > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it. > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the information. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Liya Fan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau < > jacq...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <liya.fa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jacques, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I > would like to > > > > > > try > > > > > > > > to resolve them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Liya Fan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau < > jacq...@apache.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think > are top > > > > > of > > > > > > > > mind > > > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird > incompatibility > > > > > changes > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as > pre-1.0 as I > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target > release > > > > > for a > > > > > > > > > ticket. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have > interest in > > > > > > trying > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > resolve? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson < > > > > > > > > > neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to > start > > > > > > > mobilizing > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided > that our > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since > 0.15, so > > > > > > we're > > > > > > > > due > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for > when we most > > > > > > > > > recently > > > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of > ancient > > > > > > > > history, > > > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is > time for > > > > > > 1.0, > > > > > > > > > let's > > > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to > make sure > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > we've > > > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we > must > > > > > resolve > > > > > > > > > before > > > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release > > > > > already. > > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some > of those > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their > areas of > > > > > > > > expertise > > > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed > and > > > > > > > prioritized > > > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks > for > > > > > making > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > 1.0 > > > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > [3]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release > > > > > > > > > > [4]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
