The final tally is 4 binding +1 votes, 3 non-binding +1 votes, no -1 votes.
The vote passes! I'll finishing up responding to any outstanding comments
on the PRs and then merge them when ready.
Binding +1: Myself, Dewey, Antoine, David
Non-Binding+1: Felipe, Ian, MapleWish
Thanks everyone!
--Matt
+1 (non-binding)
Best,
Xuwei Fu
David Li 于2024年10月29日周二 07:51写道：
> +1 (binding) for me
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2024, at 10:39, Ian Cook wrote:
> > Oh ok, thanks Matt, I understand.
> >
> > In that case I am +1 on the proposal but I would like to see notes added
> to
> > the documentation to make th
+1 (binding) for me
On Sat, Oct 26, 2024, at 10:39, Ian Cook wrote:
> Oh ok, thanks Matt, I understand.
>
> In that case I am +1 on the proposal but I would like to see notes added to
> the documentation to make this clearer to readers. I created an issue for
> this: https://github.com/apache/arro
Oh ok, thanks Matt, I understand.
In that case I am +1 on the proposal but I would like to see notes added to
the documentation to make this clearer to readers. I created an issue for
this: https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/44535
Thanks,
Ian
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 2:54 PM Matt Topol wro
Given the promises of the C Data Interface, it's not viable to retire the
non-device versions of the interfaces. But overall, it's better to prefer
only adding new things in terms of the DeviceArray structs to avoid
consumers having to create duplicate interfaces for both ArrowArray and
ArrowDevice
Thanks Matt for doing this!
I am +0.5 on the current proposal, because (if I understand correctly) it
adds ArrowAsyncDeviceStreamHandler but does not
add ArrowAsyncStreamHandler. I recognize that the C Device Stream Interface
with a DeviceType of CPU is functionally equivalent to the C Stream
Inte
@pitrou I've updated the format PR to add the Experimental tag to the
header and the documentation. Thanks!
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024, 7:35 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> +1, with the same comments as Felipe and Dewey.
>
> Just at one condition from me: the API should be marked experimental.
>
> Regard
+1, with the same comments as Felipe and Dewey.
Just at one condition from me: the API should be marked experimental.
Regards
Antoine.
Le 24/10/2024 à 23:17, Felipe Oliveira Carvalho a écrit :
+1 from me.
I reviewed the PR some time ago and it's not a trivial protocol, but the
complexity
+1 from me.
I reviewed the PR some time ago and it's not a trivial protocol, but the
complexity seems warranted and necessary.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dewey Dunnington
wrote:
> Thanks Matt for putting this together!
>
> I was initially concerned about the complexity of the proposal;
> h
Thanks Matt for putting this together!
I was initially concerned about the complexity of the proposal;
however, it is a difficult interaction to standardize and this
proposal is not so complex that it is unimplementable. I am excited to
use this to improve our asynchronous database access story in
Hey All,
I would like to propose a vote for us to officially add and adopt Async
structures for the Arrow C Data Interface. The proposal can be found, along
with discussion in comment threads, at [1]. The proposal contains the
definitions and additions to the documentation for the website.
As is
11 matches
Mail list logo
