Hi all, to help us get ready, I've started a draft blog post for the 0.16
release: https://github.com/apache/arrow-site/pull/41
We'll need to fill in the sections. Feel free to push edits to my branch,
or you can also email me (personally is fine) and I can paste them in.
Neal
On Thu, Jan 9, 20
Understood and appreciated. Yeah, it can become a bit of a mess.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:22 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
> Will do -- there were many C++ and Python-related issues that I think
> were put in 1.0.0 / 0.16.0 overly optimistically and so I removed the
> Fix Version entirely (some of the
Will do -- there were many C++ and Python-related issues that I think
were put in 1.0.0 / 0.16.0 overly optimistically and so I removed the
Fix Version entirely (some of these had been pushed off 3-4 major
releases ago). I may have removed some Fix Versions from other
components that should have be
It would be helpful that when something is assigned to a release and you
want to push it out, you push it to the next release as opposed to removing
a fix version entirely. Thanks!
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:26 AM Wes McKinney wrote:
> I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 an
I just finished an initial curation of the JIRA backlog. There are now
137 issues which is probably more than will be resolved before
releasing. I noticed some concerning bugs that may need attention, but
if there are any new feature or nice-to-have issues that you are
familiar with please remove t
That sounds fine to me. I don't see many blocking issues for a major
release, and the nightly reports are fairly clean, so I think we
should try to be ready to go at the beginning of that week of the
19th.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:40 PM Neal Richardson
wrote:
>
> If we expect that the release pro
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:40 PM Neal Richardson
wrote:
>
> If we expect that the release process may be less stable this time, should
> we bump up our target date for an RC, like to the 20th or 21st (two weeks
> from now)? That would give us more leeway to make sure we get a release out
> before t
If we expect that the release process may be less stable this time, should
we bump up our target date for an RC, like to the 20th or 21st (two weeks
from now)? That would give us more leeway to make sure we get a release out
before the end of January.
Neal
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:02 PM Krisztián
Sounds good to me. I'll help with the jira curation.
Because of the recent CI migrations we'll need to be more thorough during
the verification, and I also expect minor issues during the release process.
So I volunteer to be the RM if no one else wants to jump in.
Thanks, Krisztian
On Tue, Jan 7
Thanks, Wes. I made
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+0.16.0+Release to
help us track 0.16.
Neal
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:26 AM Wes McKinney wrote:
> I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> work on removing issues that are not necessary to be
I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
(others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
back, but I think either
We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
get done before March/
I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we cast
aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of enumerating
what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can get it
done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a 0.17
rele
I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out with
getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya wrote:
> Hi Jacques,
>
> ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> Thanks a lot for the information.
>
> Best,
> Liya Fan
>
>
Hi Jacques,
ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
Thanks a lot for the information.
Best,
Liya Fan
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau wrote:
> The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
>
> Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
>
> On Fri, J
The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya wrote:
> Hi Jacques,
>
> I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to try
> to resolve them.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Liya Fan
>
> On Sat,
Hi,
IMO we should focus on the 1.0 release while maintaining the
recently stabilized ~3 month release period:
0.12.0: 2019-01-20
0.13.0: 2019-04-01
0.14.0: 2019-07-04
0.15.0: 2019-10-05
So a 0.16.0 release sounds much more realistic to me at the
end of the next week or the week after.
Perhaps w
IIRC we would also need Java implementations of LargeList and
LargeString, though of course that requires the involvement of
interested Java contributors.
Given all this, I think we can go with a 0.16.0 major release soon.
Regards
Antoine.
Le 04/01/2020 à 11:16, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> Hi,
Hi,
Unless I’m mistaken we have a number of format implementation completeness
deficits that would make it hard to do a 1.0 release until they are taken
care of
* Null type
* Union types
* Dictionary deltas and replacements
(Anything else?)
Note on this last item, the integration test JSON form
I am sorry. I did not notice the issues have already been assigned.
Best,
Liya Fan
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 12:15 PM Fan Liya wrote:
> Hi Jacques,
>
> I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to try
> to resolve them.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Liya Fan
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at
Hi Jacques,
I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to try
to resolve them.
Thanks.
Liya Fan
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau wrote:
> I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of mind
> and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid
-7495
--
From:Jacques Nadeau
Send Time:2020年1月4日(星期六) 07:16
To:dev
Subject:Re: Looking to 1.0
I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of mind
and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility chang
Thanks for reviewing, Jacques. Re: Jira tagging, the convention I've seen
is to use "Fix Version" for open tickets to indicate a target release
(that's what the confluence board draws from, for example). So by my
understanding, Fix Version == 1.0.0 and Priority == Blocker says that
they're things w
I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of mind
and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility changes in
the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I don't
exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release for a
ticket.
ht
Hi all,
Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start mobilizing for
the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next release
should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so we're due to
release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we mos
25 matches
Mail list logo
