Re: [VOTE] Split JS implementation and Release Process

2025-05-08 Thread Krisztián Szűcs
+1 (binding) > On 2025. May 8., at 7:53, Sutou Kouhei wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > In > "[VOTE] Split JS implementation and Release Process" on Wed, 7 May 2025 > 10:48:40 +0200, > Raúl Cumplido wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to propose splitting the JS implementation and the >> corres

Re: [VOTE] Split JS implementation and Release Process

2025-05-08 Thread Raúl Cumplido
+1 (binding) El jue, 8 may 2025 a las 11:46, Krisztián Szűcs () escribió: > +1 (binding) > > > On 2025. May 8., at 7:53, Sutou Kouhei wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > In > > "[VOTE] Split JS implementation and Release Process" on Wed, 7 May 2025 > 10:48:40 +0200, > > Raúl Cumplido wrote:

Re: [VOTE][Go] Release Apache Arrow Go 18.3.0 RC0

2025-05-08 Thread Raúl Cumplido
+1 (binding) I ran successfully on Ubuntu 24.04: $ dev/release/verify_rc.sh 18.3.0 0 Thanks, Raúl El jue, 8 may 2025 a las 4:30, Dewey Dunnington () escribió: > +1 (binding) > > I ran dev/release/verify_rc.sh 18.3.0 0 on MacOS 15.4 (M4) > > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 2:13 AM Saurabh Singh > wrote:

[DISCUSS] Re-enabling s390x CI

2025-05-08 Thread ISHIZAKI Kazuaki
Hi, CI for s390x on Apache Arrow has not been enabled since we previously relied on the unstable Travis environment. Now, IBM offers permanent virtual instances for open source projects [1]. I’m considering using these instances for s390x CI as a self-hosted runner for GitHub Actions. I’ve alread

Re: [VOTE][Go] Release Apache Arrow Go 18.3.0 RC0

2025-05-08 Thread Jacob Wujciak
+1 (binding) Raúl Cumplido schrieb am Do., 8. Mai 2025, 18:10: > +1 (binding) > > I ran successfully on Ubuntu 24.04: > $ dev/release/verify_rc.sh 18.3.0 0 > > Thanks, > Raúl > > El jue, 8 may 2025 a las 4:30, Dewey Dunnington (< > dewey.dunning...@gmail.com>) > escribió: > > > +1 (binding) > >

[DISCUSS] Arrow Variant Extension Type

2025-05-08 Thread Matt Topol
Hey All, There's been various discussions occurring on many different thread locations (issues, PRs, and so on)[1][2][3], and more that I haven't linked to, concerning what a canonical Variant Extension Type for Arrow might look like. As I've looked into implementing some things, I've also spoken

Re: [DISCUSS] Arrow Variant Extension Type

2025-05-08 Thread Ian Cook
As Parquet adds new types including Variant, I think it's important for us to (a) preserve the ability to efficiently round-trip the full set of types between Arrow and Parquet, and (b) add new Arrow types (or canonical extension types) to enable Arrow to continue to flourish in its role as the in-