Thanks Rok for the great job! You are the rockstar! Best, Gang
On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 12:30 PM Rok Mihevc <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > We ran the Jira -> GitHub issue migration on Saturday. 2485 tickets were > migrated and can be seen here [1][2][3][4][5]. Parquet's Jira issue tracker > is now in read-only mode and all issues received a comment linking them to > their GitHub counterparts. We strived to keep contents and metadata as > close to the originals as possible to minimise disruption to work of > contributors and keep the historical record of work. Comments, issue > crosslinks, attachments, versions, priorities and labels were preserved > wherever possible. Authorship is indicated with Jira and GitHub (where > known) usernames. > > Migration did not preserve issue notification settings and even if you are > tagged in the GitHub issue you will not be notified of changes. You can > subscribe to GitHub issues you were watching on Jira by running our > subscription transfer script [6]. > > I would like to thank everybody that worked on this and the original Arrow > migration which this one was based on [7]. > > Rok > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Aasfimport > [2] > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Aasfimport > [3] > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Aasfimport > [4] > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Aasfimport > [5] > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Aasfimport+label%3A%22Component%3A+Parquet%22 > [6] > > https://github.com/rok/arrow-migration/blob/main/transfer_parquet_subscriptions.py > [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PARQUET-2502 > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 8:28 AM Gábor Szádovszky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Rok, > > > > Thanks for working on this! > > * The mapping is perfect. There are some components which were deprecated > > and then removed, including parquet-cascading, but they were part of > > parquet-mr. > > * I would agree these labels do not seem to be very useful. On the other > > hand, we are migrating all the jiras with all the relevant data. I don't > > have a strong opinion on either dropping or keeping these labels. > > > > Cheers, > > Gabor > > > > Rok Mihevc <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2024. jún. 13., Cs, > > 20:03): > > > > > I'll start a vote thread but would still welcome any feedback. > > > > > > It would also be nice to confirm the following: > > > * is the component-to-repo mapping ok as proposed (e.g. > > > jira/parquet-cascading --> github/parquet-java) > > > * do we want to keep old labels? they were not used much in Jira see > > label > > > counts below (this is for ~1500 java issues): > > > > > > pull-request-available 268 > > > filter2 12 > > > newbie 8 > > > pick-me-up 8 > > > parquet 5 > > > parquetWriter 4 > > > security 4 > > > patch 4 > > > features 3 > > > easyfix 3 > > > documentation 3 > > > beginner 2 > > > java 2 > > > avro 2 > > > Parquet 2 > > > noob 2 > > > performance 2 > > > random-access 1 > > > decimal 1 > > > fixed 1 > > > empty-file 1 > > > Drill 1 > > > parquet-tools 1 > > > jackson-databind 1 > > > vulnerabilities 1 > > > bug 1 > > > column 1 > > > parquetReader 1 > > > usability 1 > > > newbe 1 > > > n00b 1 > > > ProtoParquetWriter.Builder 1 > > > correctness 1 > > > serde 1 > > > None 1 > > > spark 1 > > > nullpointerexception 1 > > > hive 1 > > > hadoop 1 > > > OOM 1 > > > question 1 > > > unique 1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 5:43 PM Micah Kornfield <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Maybe we should just start the vote? > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 13, 2024, Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 4:49 PM Uwe L. Korn <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024, at 4:42 PM, Micah Kornfield wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) rom me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 13, 2024, Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 on this > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> BTW, I created following PRs to enable github issues to these > > > > repos: > > > > > > >> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/255 > > > > > > >> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/1362 > > > > > > >> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing/pull/50 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I will not merge them until the formal vote passes. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Best, > > > > > > >> Gang > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 7:43 PM Rok Mihevc < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Hi all, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Discussing migration of parquet-cpp issues into Arrow's > GitHub > > > > issue > > > > > > >> > tracker [1] produced the idea of moving other parquet > tickets > > > into > > > > > > GitHub > > > > > > >> > issue trackers as well. > > > > > > >> > Since parquet-format, parquet-site and parquet-testing > > separate > > > > > repos, > > > > > > >> > issues related to them should probably be moved into their > > issue > > > > > > >> trackers. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > To preview the state after migration I've split tickets by > > > > component > > > > > > (see > > > > > > >> > mapping below) and imported them into testing repos for > > preview. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-avro --> github/parquet-java > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-cascading --> github/parquet-java > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-cli --> github/parquet-java > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-cpp --> github/arrow > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-format --> github//parquet-format > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-hadoop --> github//parquet-java > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-mr --> github/parquet-java > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-pig --> github/parquet-java > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-protobuf --> github/parquet-java > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-site --> github/parquet-site > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-testing --> github/parquet-testing > > > > > > >> > jira/parquet-thrift --> github/parquet-java > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > https://github.com/rok/test-parquet-cpp/issues > > > > > > >> > https://github.com/rok/test-parquet-java/issues > > > > > > >> > https://github.com/rok/test-parquet-format/issues > > > > > > >> > https://github.com/rok/test-parquet-site/issues > > > > > > >> > https://github.com/rok/test-parquet-testing/issues > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I would like to start a discussion here to see if the > > community > > > is > > > > > > open > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > migration, should proposed migration be amended and to call > > for > > > a > > > > > > vote if > > > > > > >> > we reach consensus. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > For some considerations the Arrow community had when > migrating > > > you > > > > > can > > > > > > >> also > > > > > > >> > see related issue [2]. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > [1] > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/zklp0lwcbcsdzgxoxy6wqjwrvt6y4s > > > > > 9p > > > > > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/14542 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Rok > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
