That sounds fine to me, mostly was curious about what others thought.
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Neal Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not convinced (but open to persuasion) that ARROW-8860 alone merits the > effort of a patch release. It's unfortunate but has a number of > workarounds/alternatives, and it's arguably not a regression but rather a > bug in a new feature. Plus, there are (unofficial) nightly Python and R > packages available for anyone who must have a fix right away. > > Personally, I'd rather see us focus our efforts on getting a rock-solid 1.0 > out the door in 5-6 weeks time. > > Neal > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 1:50 PM Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Given some of the biggish projects (eg C++ kernels ARROW-8792) ongoing I'd > > be slightly concerned about cutting a release out of master right away > > until a little more time has passed, but I can see arguments both ways > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2020, 3:40 PM Krisztián Szűcs <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > The amount of effort required to create a patch release is comparable > > > to a minor release. How about we should create a 0.18 minor release > > > instead? > > > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:54 PM Wes McKinney <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > In light of ARROW-8860 and perhaps some other critical bugs that have > > > > been reported, and since our releases have been going more smoothly, > > > > what do people think about doing another patch release in a week or > > > > two? > > > > >
