Hi all,
Migration of parquet-cpp tickets is now complete; details were already
posted to dev@parquet [1].
Rok
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/r73prrlt2qo1qr5xk79rxqo4zzvqmkvr
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 4:06 AM Gang Wu wrote:
> IMO, we'd better start a separate discussion to dev@parquet ML
>
IMO, we'd better start a separate discussion to dev@parquet ML
as the original discussion contains a lot of stuff and I didn't see
enough Parquet PMCs to reply to this topic.
Best,
Gang
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 7:01 AM Rok Mihevc wrote:
> > Perhaps we need a separate vote for non-parquet-cpp rep
> Perhaps we need a separate vote for non-parquet-cpp repos before the
action.
Agreed. Did we discuss this enough to call for a vote yet?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 5:23 PM Gang Wu wrote:
> Thanks Rok for the update!
>
> Yes, the copied issues look good to me. Perhaps we need a separate
> vote for
Thanks Rok for the update!
Yes, the copied issues look good to me. Perhaps we need a separate
vote for non-parquet-cpp repos before the action.
Best,
Gamg
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:40 AM Rok Mihevc wrote:
> I have set up a script for the parquet-cpp migration (and also for
> migration of othe
I have set up a script for the parquet-cpp migration (and also for
migration of other parquet tickets in case we decide to go ahead).
I would like to run the parquet-cpp migration sometime next week.
To test the process I've created the following test repos and copied issues
there. Please take a l
Would we also want to add issue templates to encourage some structure? See
[1] for inspiration.
[1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 3:50 AM Gang Wu wrote:
> Thanks Dewey!
>
> Please note that parquet-site has already enabled GitHub issues
Thanks Dewey!
Please note that parquet-site has already enabled GitHub issues. So I
created following PRs:
- https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/255
- https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/1362
- https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing/pull/50
Best,
Gang
On Thu, May 30, 2024 a
> INFRA tickets are required before migration.
Perhaps this is different for existing repositories, but just a note
that it may also be possible by editing .asf.yaml (e.g. [1])
[1]
https://github.com/apache/arrow-nanoarrow/blob/81711045e8bb4ded1cb3b5a6fa354b35f18aa4e7/.asf.yaml#L24-L25
On Wed,
Just want to mention that these apache/parquet-* Github repositories
have not yet enabled issues and INFRA tickets are required before
migration.
Best,
Gang
On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 1:55 AM Micah Kornfield
wrote:
> SGTM +1
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:50 AM Rok Mihevc wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May
SGTM +1
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:50 AM Rok Mihevc wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 4:39 PM Fokko Driesprong wrote:
>
> > Hey Rok,
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up. I'm also very much in favor of Github. Once
> > we've migrated cpp, I think migrating the other repositories is a great
> > id
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 4:39 PM Fokko Driesprong wrote:
> Hey Rok,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. I'm also very much in favor of Github. Once
> we've migrated cpp, I think migrating the other repositories is a great
> idea. Let me know if I can help!
Perfect! A question I think we want to ans
Hey Rok,
Thanks for bringing this up. I'm also very much in favor of Github. Once
we've migrated cpp, I think migrating the other repositories is a great
idea. Let me know if I can help!
Kind regards,
Fokko
Op wo 29 mei 2024 om 16:03 schreef Rok Mihevc :
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 3:22 AM Gang W
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 3:22 AM Gang Wu wrote:
> Perhaps we can directly proceed to a vote?
>
Since we seem to be in agreement regarding parquet-cpp I'll go ahead and
call for a vote.
I would meanwhile propose to discuss migration of other parquet issues
(parquet-java, parquet-site, parquet-for
+1 on this.
IIUC, I didn't see any objection to this in the discussion [1]. Perhaps we
can directly proceed to a vote? Sorry that I was intended to initialize the
vote but got distracted by other stuff.
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/jf9wos3t6xxk6xdyx2dof1jlkbpkr56p
Best,
Gang
On Wed, May
I'm also +1 on the idea for both Parquet-java and parquet-pp
On Tuesday, May 28, 2024, Andrew Lamb wrote:
> I think it is a great idea -- github has served arrow (and datafusion) very
> well in my opinion.
>
> Specifically, having to sign up for a JIRA account (which can not be
> created self-se
I think it is a great idea -- github has served arrow (and datafusion) very
well in my opinion.
Specifically, having to sign up for a JIRA account (which can not be
created self-service) adds a small, but real barrier to engagement and
contribution.
Removing the barrier I think encourages more co
Hi all,
I'd like to re-raise the idea of migrating parquet-cpp issues from
Parquet's Jira to Arrow's GitHub issue tracker. Arrow migrated in January
2023 [1]. The migration was relatively smooth and the experience since
seems to be positive.
The reasons we would want to migrate parque-cpp issues
17 matches
Mail list logo
