Hmm, if downstream libraries were expecting a dict, perhaps we'll need to revert that change...
Regards Antoine. Le 06/04/2020 à 08:50, Joris Van den Bossche a écrit : > We also have a recent regression related to the KeyValueMetadata wrapping > python that is causing failures in downstream libraries, that seems a > blocker for the release: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-8342 > > On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We are getting close to the 0.17.0 endgame. >> >> Here are the 18 JIRAs still in the 0.17.0 milestone. There are a few >> issues without patches yet so we should decide quickly whether they >> need to be included. Are they any blocking issues not accounted for in >> the milestone? >> >> * ARROW-6947 [Rust] [DataFusion] Add support for scalar UDFs >> >> Patch available >> >> * ARROW-7794 [Rust] cargo publish fails for arrow-flight due to >> relative path to Flight.proto >> >> No patch yet >> >> * ARROW-7222 [Python][Release] Wipe any existing generated Python API >> documentation when updating website >> >> This issue needs to be addressed by the release manager and the >> Confluence instructions must be updated. >> >> * ARROW-7891 [C++] RecordBatch->Equals should also have a >> check_metadata argument >> >> Patch available that needs to be reviewed and approved >> >> * ARROW-8164: [C++][Dataset] Let datasets be viewable with non-identical >> schema >> >> Patch available, but failures to be resolved >> >> * ARROW-7965: [Python] Hold a reference to the dataset factory for later >> reuse >> >> Depends on ARROW-8164, will require rebase >> >> * ARROW-8039: [Python][Dataset] Support using dataset API in >> pyarrow.parquet with a minimal ParquetDataset shim >> >> Patch pending >> >> * ARROW-8047: [Python][Documentation] Document migration from >> ParquetDataset to pyarrow.datasets >> >> May be tackled beyond 0.17.0 >> >> * ARROW-8063: [Python] Add user guide documentation for Datasets API >> >> May be tackled beyond 0.17.0 >> >> * ARROW-8149 [C++/Python] Enable CUDA Support in conda recipes >> >> Does not seem strictly necessary for release, since a packaging issue >> >> * ARROW-8162: [Format][Python] Add serialization for CSF sparse tensors >> >> Patch available, but needs review. May >> >> * ARROW-8213: [Python][Dataset] Opening a dataset with a local >> incorrect path gives confusing error message >> >> Nice to have, but not essential >> >> * ARROW-8266: [C++] Add backup mirrors for external project source >> downloads >> >> Patch available, nice to have >> >> * ARROW-8275 [Python][Docs] Review Feather + IPC file documentation >> per "Feather V2" changes >> >> Patch available >> >> * ARROW-8300 [R] Documentation and changelog updates for 0.17 >> >> Patch available >> >> * ARROW-8320 [Documentation][Format] Clarify (lack of) alignment >> requirements in C data interface >> >> Patch available >> >> * ARROW-8330: [Documentation] The post release script generates the >> documentation with a development version >> >> Patch available >> >> * ARROW-8335: [Release] Add crossbow jobs to run release verification >> >> Patch in progress >> >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:23 PM Fan Liya <liya.fa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I see ARROW-6871 in the list. >>> It seems it has some bugs, which are being fixed by ARROW-8239. >>> So I have added ARROW-8239 to the list. >>> >>> The PR for ARROW-8239 is already approved, so it is expected to be >> resolved >>> soon. >>> >>> Best, >>> Liya Fan >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:01 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I moved the Java issues out of 0.17.0, they seem complex enough or not >> of >>>> enough significance to make them blockers for 0.17.0 release. If >> owners of >>>> the issues disagree please move them back int. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:05 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We've made good progress, but there are still 35 issues in the >>>>> backlog. Some of them are documentation related, but there are some >>>>> functionality-related patches that could be at risk. If all could >>>>> review again to trim out anything that isn't going to make the cut >> for >>>>> 0.17.0, please do >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 2:39 PM Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I just took a first pass at reviewing the Java and Rust issues and >>>>> removed >>>>>> some from the 0.17.0 release. There are a few small Rust issues >> that I >>>> am >>>>>> actively working on for this release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:13 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> hi Neal, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for helping coordinate. I agree we should be in a >> position to >>>>>>> release sometime next week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can folks from the Rust and Java side review issues in the >> backlog? >>>>>>> According to the dashboard there are 19 Rust issues open and 7 >> Java >>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:01 AM Neal Richardson >>>>>>> <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> A few weeks ago, there seemed to be consensus (lazy, at least) >> for >>>> a >>>>> 0.17 >>>>>>>> release at the end of the month. Judging from >>>>>>>> >>>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+0.17.0+Release, >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> looks like we're getting closer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd encourage everyone to review their backlogs and (1) bump >> from >>>>> 0.17 >>>>>>>> scope any tickets they don't plan to finish this week, and (2) >> if >>>>> there >>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> any issues that should block release, make sure they are >> flagged as >>>>>>>> "blockers". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Neal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 7:39 AM Wes McKinney < >> wesmck...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems like the consensus is to push for a 0.17.0 major >> release >>>>>>>>> sooner rather than doing a patch release, since releases in >>>> general >>>>>>>>> are costly. This is fine with me. I see that a 0.17.0 >> milestone >>>> has >>>>>>>>> been created in JIRA and some JIRA gardening has begun. Do >> you >>>>> think >>>>>>>>> we can be in a position to release by the week of March 23 >> or the >>>>> week >>>>>>>>> of March 30? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 8:39 PM Wes McKinney < >> wesmck...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If people are generally on board with accelerating a 0.17.0 >>>> major >>>>>>>>>> release, then I would suggest renaming "1.0.0" to "0.17.0" >> and >>>>>>>>>> beginning to do issue gardening to whittle things down to >>>>>>>>>> critical-looking bugs and high probability patches for the >> next >>>>>>> couple >>>>>>>>>> of weeks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:31 AM Wes McKinney < >>>>> wesmck...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I recall there are some other issues that have been >> reported >>>> or >>>>>>> fixed >>>>>>>>>>> that are critical and not yet marked with 0.16.1. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm also OK with doing a 0.17.0 release sooner >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:31 AM Neal Richardson >>>>>>>>>>> <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would also be more supportive of doing 0.17 earlier >>>>> instead of >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> patch >>>>>>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Neal >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:29 AM Neal Richardson < >>>>>>>>> neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If releases were costless to make, I'd be all for >> it, but >>>>> it's >>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> clear >>>>>>>>>>>>> to me that it's worth the diversion from other >> priorities >>>>> to >>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>> a release >>>>>>>>>>>>> right now. Nothing on >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Resolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.16.1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> jumps out to me as super urgent--what are you seeing >> as >>>>>>> critical? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did decide to go forward, would it be possible >> to >>>> do >>>>> a >>>>>>>>> release that >>>>>>>>>>>>> is limited to the affected implementations (say, do a >>>>>>> Python-only >>>>>>>>> release)? >>>>>>>>>>>>> That might reduce the cost of building and verifying >>>>> enough to >>>>>>>>> make it >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to consider. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Neal >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 8:19 AM Krisztián Szűcs < >>>>>>>>> szucs.kriszt...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 5:07 PM Wes McKinney < >>>>>>> wesmck...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There have been a number of critical issues >> reported >>>>> (many >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed already) since 0.16.0 was released. Is there >>>>> interest >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preparing a patch 0.16.1 release (with backported >>>>> patches >>>>>>> onto a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maint-0.16.x branch as with 0.15.1) since the next >>>> major >>>>>>>>> release is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minimum of 6-8 weeks away from general >> availability? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did the 0.15.1 patch release helper script that >>>>> Krisztian >>>>>>> wrote >>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributed as a PR? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not yet, but it is available at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/kszucs/b2743546044ccd3215e5bb34fa0d76a0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >
