Hi, It makes sense. Let's complete the followings in apache/arrow before we move the C# implementation to apache/arrow-dotnet from apache/arrow:
* https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/44783 * https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/46190 Thanks, -- kou In <cao-cae5lqb35qaggpe9yoy9trl7brfkiakuuqcdsdsgkvpk...@mail.gmail.com> "Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Split C# release process" on Tue, 22 Apr 2025 20:48:46 -0700, Curt Hagenlocher <c...@hagenlocher.org> wrote: > In addition to the Flight SQL client, there's a new PR from yesterday and > maybe only 1-2 others that aren't super stale. I'll make a concerted effort > to resolve those, and for the remainder -- most of which are pending > authorial input -- we'll ask them to resubmit in the new repo. > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 6:01 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> When can we move the C# implementation to >> apache/arrow-dotnet from apache/arrow? >> >> There are some C# related PRs in apache/arrow: >> >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Component%3A+C%23%22 >> >> Can we continue them in apache/arrow-dotnet? (PR authors >> need to re-open PRs in apache/arrow-dotnet.) >> >> For example, should we complete "GH-44800: [C#] Implement >> Flight SQL Client" >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/44783 in apache/arrow? >> Or should we continue it in apache/arrow-dotnet? >> >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> kou >> >> In <20250331.120021.2046206843285859352....@clear-code.com> >> "Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Split C# release process" on Mon, 31 Mar 2025 >> 12:00:21 +0900 (JST), >> Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > I've created https://github.com/apache/arrow-dotnet and >> > opened an issue for importing commits from apache/arrow: >> > https://github.com/apache/arrow-dotnet/issues/1 >> > >> > Let's create issues on >> > https://github.com/apache/arrow-dotnet for other tasks. >> > >> > Upcoming 20.0.0 release will include the C# implementation >> > but the next release of it will not include the C# >> > implementation. >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > -- >> > kou >> > >> > In <20250324.143530.31638564000205432....@clear-code.com> >> > "Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Split C# release process" on Mon, 24 Mar 2025 >> 14:35:30 +0900 (JST), >> > Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > Thanks for sharing your opinions. Let's use arrow-dotnet. >> > > >> > > If there are any people who want to work on this, I'll help >> > > them. Otherwise, I'll work on this like I did for >> > > apache/arrow-go and apache/arrow-java. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > -- >> > > kou >> > > >> > > In <cagzxcpffmsafggv0huju3e8jv8xawdls9l7f2vhmieqx+3n...@mail.gmail.com >> > >> > > "Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Split C# release process" on Fri, 21 Mar 2025 >> 15:36:03 +1300, >> > > Adam Reeve <adre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >> I'd also prefer arrow-dotnet, as I think the fact it's for use on the >> .NET >> > >> platform is the more important factor to highlight rather than the >> language >> > >> it's written in. The majority of users will be using C# but I'm sure >> there >> > >> are some F# users of Arrow out there. >> > >> >> > >> That said, I don't feel that strongly against arrow-csharp either. >> > >> >> > >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 15:18, Curt Hagenlocher <c...@hagenlocher.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Yes, but can we weight each repository by the number of stars it >> has? :P >> > >>> >> > >>> I think arrow-dotnet is a better name, but it's a mild preference at >> best. >> > >>> >> > >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 6:01 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> >> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> > Hi, >> > >>> > >> > >>> > The vote carries with 5 +1 binding votes. >> > >>> > >> > >>> > Let's discuss the new repository name as suggested by Bryce. >> > >>> > Should we use arrow-dotnet not arrow-csharp? >> > >>> > >> > >>> > FYI: The number of GitHub repositories that include "dotnet" or >> > >>> > "csharp" in their name: >> > >>> > >> > >>> > * "dotnet": 164K >> > >>> > https://github.com/search?q=dotnet&type=repositories >> > >>> > * "csharp": 257K >> > >>> > https://github.com/search?q=csharp&type=repositories >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > Thanks, >> > >>> > -- >> > >>> > kou >> > >>> > >> > >>> > In <20250317.101329.2226182884160584389....@clear-code.com> >> > >>> > "[VOTE] Split C# release process" on Mon, 17 Mar 2025 10:13:29 >> +0900 >> > >>> > (JST), >> > >>> > Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: >> > >>> > >> > >>> > > Hi, >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > I would like to propose splitting C# release process. >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > Motivation: >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > * We want to reduce needless major releases because major >> > >>> > > releases require users' change >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > Approach: >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > 1. Extract csharp/ in apache/arrow to apache/arrow-csharp like >> > >>> > > apache/arrow-go >> > >>> > > * Filter csharp/ related commits from apache/arrow and create >> > >>> > > apache/arrow-csharp with them like we did for >> apache/arrow-go >> > >>> > > * Remove csharp/ related codes from apache/arrow >> > >>> > > 2. Prepare integration test CI like apache/arrow-go does: >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> https://github.com/apache/arrow-go/blob/21de5d0b84289a0d37974fa6bd0852407d2c0d00/.github/workflows/test.yml#L347-L402 >> > >>> > > 3. Prepare release script based on apache/arrow-go and >> > >>> > > apache/arrow-java. >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > New release process: >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > * apache/arrow-csharp will be released separated from >> > >>> > > apache/arrow >> > >>> > > * Curt will be a release manager of apache/arrow-csharp and >> > >>> > > there are some PMC members who help apache/arrow-csharp >> > >>> > > releases >> > >>> > > * apache/arrow releases a new major version per 3-4 months >> > >>> > > but apache/arrow-csharp will use more longer major release >> > >>> > > cycle >> > >>> > > * apache/arrow-csharp will use more minor/patch releases >> > >>> > > than apache/arrow >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > See also the discussion of this: >> > >>> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/xbtq1ndjnljyo9jpm4ozblq9wx7hrc7y >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > [ ] +1 Accept this proposal >> > >>> > > [ ] +0 >> > >>> > > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > Thanks, >> > >>> > > -- >> > >>> > > kou >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >>
