Thanks Kou and David. I've just sent an email to start the vote thread
for Arrow 19.0.0 RC0.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 3:15 AM David Li wrote:
>
> Let's have Arrow proceed and then I'll start RC2 afterwards (to fix the R
> docs issue).
>
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2025, at 11:27, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> > -1
Let's have Arrow proceed and then I'll start RC2 afterwards (to fix the R docs
issue).
On Sun, Jan 12, 2025, at 11:27, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> -1
>
> Sorry... I removed ADBC 16 RC 1 files in our APT/Yum
> repositories by processing Apache Arrow 19.0.0 RC0... I
> should have uploaded Apache Arrow 19
-1
Sorry... I removed ADBC 16 RC 1 files in our APT/Yum
repositories by processing Apache Arrow 19.0.0 RC0... I
should have uploaded Apache Arrow 19.0.0 RC0 files after
ADBC 16 is released... I forgot it...
Could you re-upload ADBC 16 RC 1 files by
dev/release/05-linux-upload.sh after Apache Arro
+1 (non-binding)
Tested on Ubuntu 24.04
Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2025 um 04:46 Uhr schrieb Dewey Dunnington
:
>
> +1!
>
> I ran USE_CONDA=1 TEST_APT=0 TEST_YUM=0 ./verify-release-candidate.sh 16 1
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 7:30 AM Raúl Cumplido wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am not sure whether this is an
+1!
I ran USE_CONDA=1 TEST_APT=0 TEST_YUM=0 ./verify-release-candidate.sh 16 1
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 7:30 AM Raúl Cumplido wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure whether this is an issue with my environment or a real issue
> but the verification is failing consistently for the YUM packages for
> Alam
Hi,
I am not sure whether this is an issue with my environment or a real issue
but the verification is failing consistently for the YUM packages for
Alamlinux:9 with:
+ echo ::endgroup::
+ echo '::group::Test ADBC Arrow GLib'
+ dnf install -y --enablerepo=crb --enablerepo=epel adbc-arrow-glib-deve
Yeah, it's not strictly required. I'll leave this RC up for now then. The dev
docs are updated so there's at least _something_ to point to.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025, at 12:49, Jacob Wujciak-Jens wrote:
> Is it just a matter of building BigQuery in the docs job? In that case
> another RC isn't needed
Is it just a matter of building BigQuery in the docs job? In that case
another RC isn't needed as you can update the asf-site branch
manually. But depending on how easy RCs for adbc are that might be
more work then another RC xD
Am Fr., 10. Jan. 2025 um 03:55 Uhr schrieb David Li :
>
> Sorry...@ei
Sorry...@eitsupi reminded me there was a deployment issue with the R docs that
wasn't fixed (BigQuery wasn't being built). The fix for that is now on main;
should I cut RC2 so that the fix is included?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025, at 08:28, David Li wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose the follo
