FYI, I'm not sure if it is a permissions issue or I've done something wrong but github-actions does not seem to be responding to "@github-actions <https://github.com/github-actions> crossbow submit test-conda-python-3.7-spark-master" when I enter it. If someone could kick off the spark integration test I would be grateful.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:09 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Bryan. I cherry-picked your change onto my change [1] which now > honors timezone aware datetime objects on ingestion. I've kicked off the > spark integration tests. > > If this change doesn't work I think the correct course of action is to > provide an environment variable in python to turn back to the old behavior > (ignoring timezones on conversion). I think honoring timezone information > where possible is a strict improvement but I agree we should give users an > option to not break if they wish to upgrade to the latest version. I need > to get some sleep but I will have another PR posted tomorrow evening if the > current one doesn't unblock the release. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7805 > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 10:50 PM Bryan Cutler <cutl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'd rather not see ARROW-9223 reverted, if possible. I will put up my >> hacked patch to Spark for this so we can test against it if needed, and >> could share my branch if anyone else wants to test it locally. >> >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:35 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I'll spend some time tonight on it and if I can't get round trip working >> > I'll handle reverting >> > >> > On Sunday, July 19, 2020, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:33 PM Neal Richardson >> > > <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > It sounds like you may have identified a pyarrow bug, which sounds >> not >> > > > good, though I don't know enough about the broader context to know >> > > whether >> > > > this is (1) worse than 0.17 or (2) release blocking. I defer to >> y'all >> > who >> > > > know better. >> > > > >> > > > If there are quirks in how Spark handles timezone-naive timestamps, >> > > > shouldn't the fix/workaround go in pyspark, not pyarrow? For what >> it's >> > > > worth, I dealt with similar Spark timezone issues in R recently: >> > > > https://github.com/sparklyr/sparklyr/issues/2439 I handled with it >> (in >> > > > sparklyr, not the arrow R package) by always setting a timezone when >> > > > sending data to Spark. Not ideal but it made the numbers "right". >> > > >> > > Since people are running this code in production we need to be careful >> > > about disrupting them. Unfortunately I'm at the limit of how much time >> > > I can spend on this, but releasing with ARROW-9223 as is (without >> > > being partially or fully reverted) makes me deeply uncomfortable. So I >> > > hope the matter can be resolved. >> > > >> > > > Neal >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:13 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Honestly I think reverting is the best option. This change >> evidently >> > > > > needs more time to "season" and perhaps this is motivation to >> enhance >> > > > > test coverage in a number of places. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:11 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I am OK with any solution that doesn't delay the production of >> the >> > > > > > next RC by more than 24 hours >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:08 PM Micah Kornfield < >> > > emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If I read the example right it looks like constructing from >> > python >> > > > > types >> > > > > > > isn't keeping timezones into in place? I can try make a patch >> > that >> > > > > fixes >> > > > > > > that tonight or would the preference be to revert my patch >> (note >> > I >> > > > > think >> > > > > > > another bug with a prior bug was fixed in my PR as well) >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -Micah >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Sunday, July 19, 2020, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I think I see the problem now: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [40]: parr >> > > > > > > > Out[40]: >> > > > > > > > 0 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00-08:00} >> > > > > > > > 1 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000001-08:00} >> > > > > > > > 2 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000002-08:00} >> > > > > > > > dtype: object >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [41]: parr[0]['f0'] >> > > > > > > > Out[41]: datetime.datetime(1969, 12, 31, 16, 0, >> > tzinfo=<DstTzInfo >> > > > > > > > 'America/Los_Angeles' PST-1 day, 16:00:00 STD>) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [42]: pa.array(parr) >> > > > > > > > Out[42]: >> > > > > > > > <pyarrow.lib.StructArray object at 0x7f0893706a60> >> > > > > > > > -- is_valid: all not null >> > > > > > > > -- child 0 type: timestamp[us] >> > > > > > > > [ >> > > > > > > > 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000000, >> > > > > > > > 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000001, >> > > > > > > > 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000002 >> > > > > > > > ] >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [43]: pa.array(parr).field(0).type >> > > > > > > > Out[43]: TimestampType(timestamp[us]) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On 0.17.1 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [8]: arr = pa.array([0, 1, 2], type=pa.timestamp('us', >> > > > > > > > 'America/Los_Angeles')) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [9]: arr >> > > > > > > > Out[9]: >> > > > > > > > <pyarrow.lib.TimestampArray object at 0x7f9dede69d00> >> > > > > > > > [ >> > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000, >> > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000001, >> > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000002 >> > > > > > > > ] >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [10]: struct_arr = pa.StructArray.from_arrays([arr], >> > > names=['f0']) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [11]: struct_arr >> > > > > > > > Out[11]: >> > > > > > > > <pyarrow.lib.StructArray object at 0x7f9ded0016e0> >> > > > > > > > -- is_valid: all not null >> > > > > > > > -- child 0 type: timestamp[us, tz=America/Los_Angeles] >> > > > > > > > [ >> > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000, >> > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000001, >> > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000002 >> > > > > > > > ] >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [12]: struct_arr.to_pandas() >> > > > > > > > Out[12]: >> > > > > > > > 0 {'f0': 1970-01-01 00:00:00} >> > > > > > > > 1 {'f0': 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000001} >> > > > > > > > 2 {'f0': 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000002} >> > > > > > > > dtype: object >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [13]: pa.array(struct_arr.to_pandas()) >> > > > > > > > Out[13]: >> > > > > > > > <pyarrow.lib.StructArray object at 0x7f9ded003210> >> > > > > > > > -- is_valid: all not null >> > > > > > > > -- child 0 type: timestamp[us] >> > > > > > > > [ >> > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000, >> > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000001, >> > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000002 >> > > > > > > > ] >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In [14]: pa.array(struct_arr.to_pandas()).type >> > > > > > > > Out[14]: StructType(struct<f0: timestamp[us]>) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > So while the time zone is getting stripped in both cases, >> the >> > > failure >> > > > > > > > to round trip is a problem. If we are going to attach the >> time >> > > zone >> > > > > in >> > > > > > > > to_pandas() then we need to respect it when going the other >> > way. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This looks like a regression to me and so I'm inclined to >> > revise >> > > my >> > > > > > > > vote on the release to -0/-1 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:46 PM Wes McKinney < >> > > wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ah I forgot that this is a "feature" of nanosecond >> timestamps >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > In [21]: arr = pa.array([0, 1, 2], type=pa.timestamp('us', >> > > > > > > > > 'America/Los_Angeles')) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > In [22]: struct_arr = pa.StructArray.from_arrays([arr], >> > > > > names=['f0']) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > In [23]: struct_arr.to_pandas() >> > > > > > > > > Out[23]: >> > > > > > > > > 0 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00-08:00} >> > > > > > > > > 1 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000001-08:00} >> > > > > > > > > 2 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000002-08:00} >> > > > > > > > > dtype: object >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > So this is working as intended, such as it is >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:40 PM Wes McKinney < >> > > wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > There seems to be other broken StructArray stuff >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > In [14]: arr = pa.array([0, 1, 2], >> type=pa.timestamp('ns', >> > > > > > > > > > 'America/Los_Angeles')) >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > In [15]: struct_arr = pa.StructArray.from_arrays([arr], >> > > > > names=['f0']) >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > In [16]: struct_arr >> > > > > > > > > > Out[16]: >> > > > > > > > > > <pyarrow.lib.StructArray object at 0x7f089370f590> >> > > > > > > > > > -- is_valid: all not null >> > > > > > > > > > -- child 0 type: timestamp[ns, tz=America/Los_Angeles] >> > > > > > > > > > [ >> > > > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000, >> > > > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000001, >> > > > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000002 >> > > > > > > > > > ] >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > In [17]: struct_arr.to_pandas() >> > > > > > > > > > Out[17]: >> > > > > > > > > > 0 {'f0': 0} >> > > > > > > > > > 1 {'f0': 1} >> > > > > > > > > > 2 {'f0': 2} >> > > > > > > > > > dtype: object >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > All in all it appears that this part of the project >> needs >> > > some >> > > > > TLC >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:16 PM Wes McKinney < >> > > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Well, the problem is that time zones are really >> finicky >> > > > > comparing >> > > > > > > > > > > Spark (which uses a localtime interpretation of >> > timestamps >> > > > > without >> > > > > > > > > > > time zone) and Arrow (which has naive timestamps -- a >> > > concept >> > > > > similar >> > > > > > > > > > > but different from the SQL concept TIMESTAMP WITHOUT >> TIME >> > > ZONE >> > > > > -- and >> > > > > > > > > > > tz-aware timestamps). So somewhere there is a time >> zone >> > > being >> > > > > > > > stripped >> > > > > > > > > > > or applied/localized which may result in the >> transferred >> > > data >> > > > > to/from >> > > > > > > > > > > Spark being shifted by the time zone offset. I think >> it's >> > > > > important >> > > > > > > > > > > that we determine what the problem is -- if it's a >> > problem >> > > > > that has >> > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > > be fixed in Arrow (and it's not clear to me that it >> is) >> > > it's >> > > > > worth >> > > > > > > > > > > spending some time to understand what's going on to >> avoid >> > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > possibility of patch release on account of this. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:12 PM Neal Richardson >> > > > > > > > > > > <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > If it’s a display problem, should it block the >> release? >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 2020, at 3:57 PM, Wes McKinney < >> > > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I opened https://issues.apache.org/ >> > > jira/browse/ARROW-9525 >> > > > > > > > about the >> > > > > > > > > > > > > display problem. My guess is that there are other >> > > problems >> > > > > > > > lurking >> > > > > > > > > > > > > here >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:54 PM Wes McKinney < >> > > > > > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> hi Bryan, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> This is a display bug >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> In [6]: arr = pa.array([0, 1, 2], >> > > type=pa.timestamp('ns', >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'America/Los_Angeles')) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> In [7]: arr.view('int64') >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Out[7]: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> <pyarrow.lib.Int64Array object at 0x7fd1b8aaef30> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> [ >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 0, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> ] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> In [8]: arr >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Out[8]: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> <pyarrow.lib.TimestampArray object at >> > 0x7fd1b8aae6e0> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> [ >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000001, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000002 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> ] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> In [9]: arr.to_pandas() >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Out[9]: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 0 1969-12-31 16:00:00-08:00 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000000001-08:00 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000000002-08:00 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> dtype: datetime64[ns, America/Los_Angeles] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the repr of TimestampArray doesn't take into >> account >> > > the >> > > > > > > > timezone >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> In [10]: arr[0] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Out[10]: <pyarrow.TimestampScalar: >> > > Timestamp('1969-12-31 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 16:00:00-0800', tz='America/Los_Angeles')> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> So if it's incorrect, the problem is happening >> > > somewhere >> > > > > before >> > > > > > > > or >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> while the StructArray is being created. If I had >> to >> > > guess >> > > > > it's >> > > > > > > > caused >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> by the tzinfo of the datetime.datetime values not >> > > being >> > > > > handled >> > > > > > > > in the >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> way that they were before >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:19 PM Wes McKinney < >> > > > > > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Well this is not good and pretty disappointing >> > given >> > > > > that we >> > > > > > > > had nearly a month to sort through the implications of >> Micah’s >> > > > > patch. We >> > > > > > > > should try to resolve this ASAP >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:10 PM Bryan Cutler < >> > > > > > > > cutl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +0 (non-binding) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I ran verification script for binaries and then >> > > source, >> > > > > as >> > > > > > > > below, and both >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> look good >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ARROW_TMPDIR=/tmp/arrow-test TEST_DEFAULT=0 >> > > > > TEST_SOURCE=1 >> > > > > > > > TEST_CPP=1 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> TEST_PYTHON=1 TEST_JAVA=1 >> TEST_INTEGRATION_CPP=1 >> > > > > > > > TEST_INTEGRATION_JAVA=1 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> dev/release/verify-release-candidate.sh source >> > > 1.0.0 1 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I tried to patch Spark locally to verify the >> > recent >> > > > > change in >> > > > > > > > nested >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> timestamps and was not able to get things >> working >> > > quite >> > > > > > > > right, but I'm not >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure if the problem is in Spark, Arrow or my >> > patch - >> > > > > hence my >> > > > > > > > vote of +0. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Here is what I'm seeing >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ``` >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Input as datetime) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> datetime.datetime(2018, 3, 10, 0, 0) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> datetime.datetime(2018, 3, 15, 0, 0) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Struct Array) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- is_valid: all not null >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- child 0 type: timestamp[us, >> > > tz=America/Los_Angeles] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-10 00:00:00.000000, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-10 00:00:00.000000 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- child 1 type: timestamp[us, >> > > tz=America/Los_Angeles] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-15 00:00:00.000000, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-15 00:00:00.000000 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Flattened Arrays) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> types [TimestampType(timestamp[us, >> > > > > tz=America/Los_Angeles]), >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> TimestampType(timestamp[us, >> > > tz=America/Los_Angeles])] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [<pyarrow.lib.TimestampArray object at >> > > 0x7ffbbd88f520> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-10 00:00:00.000000, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-10 00:00:00.000000 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ], <pyarrow.lib.TimestampArray object at >> > > 0x7ffba958be50> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-15 00:00:00.000000, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-15 00:00:00.000000 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ]] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Pandas Conversion) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 0 2018-03-09 16:00:00-08:00 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1 2018-03-09 16:00:00-08:00 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> dtype: datetime64[ns, America/Los_Angeles], >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 0 2018-03-14 17:00:00-07:00 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1 2018-03-14 17:00:00-07:00 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> dtype: datetime64[ns, America/Los_Angeles]] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ``` >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Based on output of existing a correct timestamp >> > > udf, it >> > > > > looks >> > > > > > > > like the >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pyarrow Struct Array values are wrong and >> that's >> > > carried >> > > > > > > > through the >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> flattened arrays, causing the Pandas values to >> > have >> > > a >> > > > > > > > negative offset. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Here is output from a working udf with >> timestamp, >> > > the >> > > > > pyarrow >> > > > > > > > Array >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> displays in UTC time, I believe. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ``` >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Timestamp Array) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> type timestamp[us, tz=America/Los_Angeles] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1969-01-01 09:01:01.000000 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Pandas Conversion) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 0 1969-01-01 01:01:01-08:00 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Name: _0, dtype: datetime64[ns, >> > America/Los_Angeles] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Timezone Localized) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 0 1969-01-01 01:01:01 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Name: _0, dtype: datetime64[ns] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ``` >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I'll have to dig in further at another time and >> > > debug >> > > > > where >> > > > > > > > the values go >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrong. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 9:51 PM Micah >> Kornfield < >> > > > > > > > emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> +1 (binding) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ran wheel and binary tests on ubuntu 19.04 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:25 PM Neal >> Richardson < >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> +1 (binding) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> In addition to the usual verification on >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7787, >> I've >> > > > > > > > successfully staged the >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> R >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> binary artifacts on Windows ( >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/r-windows/ >> > > rtools-packages/pull/126 >> > > > > ), >> > > > > > > > macOS ( >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > https://github.com/autobrew/homebrew-core/pull/12 >> > > ), >> > > > > and >> > > > > > > > Linux ( >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > https://github.com/ursa-labs/arrow-r-nightly/actions/runs/ >> > > > > > > > 172977277) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the release candidate. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> And I agree with the judgment about skipping >> a >> > JS >> > > > > release >> > > > > > > > artifact. Looks >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> like there hasn't been a code change since >> > > October so >> > > > > > > > there's no point. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Neal >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:37 AM Wes >> McKinney < >> > > > > > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I see the JS failures as well. I think it >> is a >> > > > > failure >> > > > > > > > localized to >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> newer Node versions since our JavaScript CI >> > works >> > > > > fine. I >> > > > > > > > don't think >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> it should block the release given the lack >> of >> > > > > development >> > > > > > > > activity in >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> JavaScript [1] -- if any JS devs are >> concerned >> > > about >> > > > > > > > publishing an >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> artifact then we can skip pushing it to NPM >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> @Ryan it seems it may be something >> environment >> > > > > related on >> > > > > > > > your >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> machine, I'm on Ubuntu 18.04 and have not >> seen >> > > this. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * Python 3.8 wheel's tests are failed. >> 3.5, >> > 3.6 >> > > > > and 3.7 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> are passed. It seems that -larrow and >> > > > > -larrow_python >> > > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Cython are failed. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I suspect this is related to >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/commit/ >> > > > > > > > 120c21f4bf66d2901b3a353a1f67bac3c3355924#diff- >> > > > > > > > 0f69784b44040448d17d0e4e8a641fe8 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> , >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> but I don't think it's a blocking issue >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]: >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/commits/master/js >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 9:42 AM Ryan Murray >> < >> > > > > > > > rym...@dremio.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I've tested Java and it looks good. However >> > the >> > > > > verify >> > > > > > > > script keeps >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> on >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> bailing with protobuf related errors: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > 'cpp/build/orc_ep-prefix/src/orc_ep-build/c++/src/orc_ >> > > > > > > > proto.pb.cc' >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> friends cant find protobuf definitions. A >> bit >> > > odd as >> > > > > > > > cmake can see >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> protobuf >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> headers and builds directly off master work >> > just >> > > > > fine. >> > > > > > > > Has anyone >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> else >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> experienced this? I am on ubutnu 18.04 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:49 AM Antoine >> > Pitrou >> > > < >> > > > > > > > anto...@python.org> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> +1 (binding). I tested on Ubuntu 18.04. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> * Wheels verification went fine. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> * Source verification went fine with CUDA >> > > enabled >> > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> TEST_INTEGRATION_JS=0 TEST_JS=0. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I didn't test the binaries. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Antoine. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Le 17/07/2020 à 03:41, Krisztián Szűcs a >> > écrit >> > > : >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I would like to propose the second >> release >> > > > > candidate >> > > > > > > > (RC1) of >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Apache >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Arrow version 1.0.0. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a major release consisting of 826 >> > > > > resolved JIRA >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> issues[1]. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The verification of the first release >> > > candidate >> > > > > (RC0) >> > > > > > > > has failed >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [0], and >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the packaging scripts were unable to >> produce >> > > two >> > > > > > > > wheels. Compared >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to RC0 this release candidate includes >> > > additional >> > > > > > > > patches for the >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> following bugs: ARROW-9506, ARROW-9504, >> > > > > ARROW-9497, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ARROW-9500, ARROW-9499. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This release candidate is based on >> commit: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> bc0649541859095ee77d03a7b891ea8d6e2fd641 >> [2] >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The source release rc1 is hosted at [3]. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The binary artifacts are hosted at >> > > [4][5][6][7]. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The changelog is located at [8]. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please download, verify checksums and >> > > signatures, >> > > > > run >> > > > > > > > the unit >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> tests, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and vote on the release. See [9] for how >> to >> > > > > validate a >> > > > > > > > release >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> candidate. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 >> hours. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this as Apache Arrow 1.0.0 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this as Apache >> Arrow >> > > 1.0.0 >> > > > > > > > because... >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [0]: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7778#issuecomment- >> > > > > > > > 659065370 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1]: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ >> > > jira/issues/?jql=project%20% >> > > > > > > > 3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20%28Resolved%2C% >> > > 20Closed%29%20AND% >> > > > > > > > 20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [2]: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/ >> > > > > > > > bc0649541859095ee77d03a7b891ea8d6e2fd641 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [3]: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/ >> > > > > > > > dist/dev/arrow/apache-arrow-1.0.0-rc1 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [4]: https://bintray.com/apache/ >> > > > > > > > arrow/centos-rc/1.0.0-rc1 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [5]: https://bintray.com/apache/ >> > > > > > > > arrow/debian-rc/1.0.0-rc1 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [6]: https://bintray.com/apache/ >> > > > > > > > arrow/python-rc/1.0.0-rc1 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [7]: https://bintray.com/apache/ >> > > > > > > > arrow/ubuntu-rc/1.0.0-rc1 >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [8]: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/ >> > > > > > > > bc0649541859095ee77d03a7b891ea8d6e2fd641/CHANGELOG.md >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [9]: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/ >> > > confluence/display/ARROW/How+ >> > > > > > > > to+Verify+Release+Candidates >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >
