Sounds good to me. Do we have a release manager yet? Any volunteers?
Neal On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:06 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > hi all, > > It looks like we're drawing close to be able to make the 0.15.0 > release. I would suggest "pencils down" at the end of this week and > see if a release candidate can be produced next Monday September 23. > Any thoughts or objections? > > Thanks, > Wes > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:23 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > hi Eric -- yes, that's correct. I'm planning to amend the Format docs > > today regarding the EOS issue and also update the C++ library > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:21 AM Eric Erhardt > > <eric.erha...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > > I assume the plan is to merge the ARROW-6313-flatbuffer-alignment > branch into master before the 0.15 release, correct? > > > > > > BTW - I believe the C# alignment changes are ready to be merged into > the alignment branch - https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/5280/ > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:24 PM > > > To: Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > > > Cc: dev <dev@arrow.apache.org>; niki.lj <niki...@aliyun.com> > > > Subject: Re: Timeline for 0.15.0 release > > > > > > I should have a little more bandwidth to help with some of the > packaging starting tomorrow and going into the weekend. > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > With the state of nightly packaging and integration builds things > > > > aren't looking too good for being in release readiness by the end of > > > > this week but maybe I'm wrong. I'm planning to be working to close as > > > > many issues as I can and also to help with the ongoing alignment > fixes. > > > > > > > > Wes > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 11:07 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Just for reference [1] has a dashboard of the current issues: > > > >> > > > >> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwi > > > >> ki.apache.org > %2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FARROW%2FArrow%2B0.15.0%2BRelea > > > >> se&data=02%7C01%7CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com > %7Ccbead81a42104034 > > > >> > a4f308d736678a45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6370376 > > > >> > 90648216338&sdata=0Upux3i%2B9X6f8uanGKSGM5VYxR6c2ADWrxSPi1%2FgbH4 > > > >> %3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:43 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> hi all, > > > >>> > > > >>> It doesn't seem like we're going to be in a position to release at > > > >>> the beginning of next week. I hope that one more week of work (or > > > >>> less) will be enough to get us there. Aside from merging the > > > >>> alignment changes, we need to make sure that our packaging jobs > > > >>> required for the release candidate are all working. > > > >>> > > > >>> If folks could remove issues from the 0.15.0 backlog that they > don't > > > >>> think they will finish by end of next week that would help focus > > > >>> efforts (there are currently 78 issues in 0.15.0 still). I am > > > >>> looking to tackle a few small features related to dictionaries > while > > > >>> the release window is still open. > > > >>> > > > >>> - Wes > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:48 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > >>> > hi, > > > >>> > > > > >>> > I think we should try to release the week of September 9, so > > > >>> > development work should be completed by end of next week. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Does that seem reasonable? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > I plan to get up a patch for the protocol alignment changes for > > > >>> > C++ in the next couple of days -- I think that getting the > > > >>> > alignment work done is the main barrier to releasing. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Thanks > > > >>> > Wes > > > >>> > > > > >>> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:25 PM Ji Liu > > > >>> > <niki...@aliyun.com.invalid> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Hi, Wes, on the java side, I can think of several bugs that > need > > > >>> > > to > > > >>> be fixed or reminded. > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > i. ARROW-6040: Dictionary entries are required in IPC streams > > > >>> > > even > > > >>> when empty[1] > > > >>> > > This one is under review now, however through this PR we find > > > >>> > > that > > > >>> there seems a bug in java reading and writing dictionaries in IPC > > > >>> which is Inconsistent with spec[2] since it assumes all > dictionaries > > > >>> are at the start of stream (see details in PR comments, and this > > > >>> fix may not catch up with version 0.15). @Micah Kornfield > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > ii. ARROW-1875: Write 64-bit ints as strings in integration > test > > > >>> JSON files[3] > > > >>> > > Java side code already checked in, other implementations seems > not. > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > iii. ARROW-6202: OutOfMemory in JdbcAdapter[4] Caused by trying > > > >>> > > to load all records in one contiguous batch, fixed > > > >>> by providing iterator API for iteratively reading in ARROW-6219[5]. > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Thanks, > > > >>> > > Ji Liu > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > [1] > > > >>> > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > > > >>> > > > 2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Farrow%2Fpull%2F4960&data=02%7C01%7CE > > > >>> > > ric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d736678a45%7 > > > >>> > > > C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637037690648216338&a > > > >>> > > > mp;sdata=eDF%2FAsJmVs7WjfEuNBYo%2F1TypIN44xx1TTlK6kQHZVg%3D& > > > >>> > > reserved=0 [2] > > > >>> > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > > > >>> > > 2Farrow.apache.org > %2Fdocs%2Fipc.html&data=02%7C01%7CEric.Erh > > > >>> > > ardt%40microsoft.com > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d736678a45%7C72f988 > > > >>> > > > bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637037690648216338&sdat > > > >>> > > > a=H0pM8bVKsOyeORDhHxLlS%2BpaS%2F5meT52wxTKmNssuMk%3D&reserve > > > >>> > > d=0 [3] > > > >>> > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > > > >>> > > 2Fissues.apache.org > %2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FARROW-1875&data=02%7C0 > > > >>> > > 1%7CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d736678 > > > >>> > > > a45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637037690648216 > > > >>> > > > 338&sdata=coTpuoEGhfjyOSBTagdlohOTX24DQZmtbWC0gYsDmkM%3D& > > > >>> > > ;reserved=0 [4] > > > >>> > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > > > >>> > > 2Fissues.apache.org > %2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FARROW-6202%5B5&data=02 > > > >>> > > %7C01%7CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d73 > > > >>> > > > 6678a45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63703769064 > > > >>> > > > 8216338&sdata=gnyUMk8cUgwc802QBLF3eAp3mznYwonlbF0qmGyzgmY%3D > > > >>> > > &reserved=0] > > > >>> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fis > > > >>> sues.apache.org > %2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FARROW-6219&data=02%7C01%7CEric > > > >>> .Erhardt%40microsoft.com > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d736678a45%7C72f988 > > > >>> > bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637037690648216338&sdata=d3 > > > >>> LF%2BTeWSprASqO%2ByE4LywlsULHGcb1Iq%2F2byHrEPkY%3D&reserved=0 > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>> > > -- From:Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> Send > > > >>> > > Time:2019年8月19日(星期一) 23:03 To:dev <dev@arrow.apache.org> > > > >>> > > Subject:Re: Timeline for 0.15.0 release > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > I'm going to work some on organizing the 0.15.0 backlog some > > > >>> > > this week, if anyone wants to help with grooming (particularly > > > >>> > > for languages other than C++/Python where I'm focusing) that > > > >>> > > would be helpful. There have been almost 500 JIRA issues opened > > > >>> > > since the > > > >>> > > 0.14.0 release, so we should make sure to check whether there's > > > >>> > > any regressions or other serious bugs that we should try to fix > > > >>> > > for 0.15.0. > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:23 PM Wes McKinney > > > >>> > > <wesmck...@gmail.com> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > The Windows wheel issue in 0.14.1 seems to be > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 > > > >>> > > > F%2Fissues.apache.org > %2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FARROW-6015&data=02 > > > >>> > > > %7C01%7CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d > > > >>> > > > > 736678a45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6370376 > > > >>> > > > > 90648216338&sdata=D9lqHR16oRAFlPaIrcXq3UtW%2BLuJQW1u0Gom2u > > > >>> > > > WEWg0%3D&reserved=0 > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > I think the root cause could be the Windows changes in > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 > > > >>> > > > > F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Farrow%2Fcommit%2F&data=02%7C01%7 > > > >>> > > > CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com > %7Ccbead81a42104034a4f308d736678a > > > >>> > > > > 45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63703769064821 > > > >>> > > > > 6338&sdata=iPmFB%2BncIbmvp5D31vjB4A2KyuMP%2B83Vp7%2BDiOxvl > > > >>> > > > bs%3D&reserved=0 > > > >>> 223ae744cc2a12c60cecb5db593263a03c13f85a > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > I would be appreciative if a volunteer would look into what > > > >>> > > > was > > > >>> wrong > > > >>> > > > with the 0.14.1 wheels on Windows. Otherwise 0.15.0 Windows > > > >>> > > > wheels will be broken, too > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > The bad wheels can be found at > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 > > > >>> > > > > F%2Fbintray.com%2Fapache%2Farrow%2Fpython%23files%2Fpython%252 > > > >>> > > > F0.14.1&data=02%7C01%7CEric.Erhardt%40microsoft.com > %7Ccbea > > > >>> > > > > d81a42104034a4f308d736678a45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4 > > > >>> > > > > 7%7C1%7C0%7C637037690648216338&sdata=vZzx4HNS9qp2UWhFagqfJ > > > >>> > > > zbY%2BGzwspH1TO3wdfrbA6Y%3D&reserved=0 > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:28 PM Antoine Pitrou < > > > >>> solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:17:07 -0700 Micah Kornfield > > > >>> > > > > <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > In C++ they are > > > >>> > > > > > > independent, we could have 32-bit array lengths and > > > >>> variable-length > > > >>> > > > > > > types with 64-bit offsets if we wanted (we just > wouldn't > > > >>> > > > > > > be > > > >>> able to > > > >>> > > > > > > have a List child with more than INT32_MAX elements). > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > I think the point is we could do this in C++ but we > don't. > > > >>> I'm not sure we > > > >>> > > > > > would have introduced the "Large" types if we did. > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > 64-bit offsets take twice as much space as 32-bit offsets, > > > >>> > > > > so if > > > >>> you're > > > >>> > > > > storing lots of small-ish lists or strings, 32-bit offsets > > > >>> > > > > are preferrable. So even with 64-bit array lengths from > the > > > >>> > > > > start > > > >>> it would > > > >>> > > > > still be beneficial to have types with 32-bit offsets. > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Going with the limited address space in Java and calling > > > >>> > > > > > it a > > > >>> reference > > > >>> > > > > > implementation seems suboptimal. If a consumer uses a > "Large" > > > >>> type > > > >>> > > > > > presumably it is because they need the ability to store > > > >>> > > > > > more > > > >>> than INT32_MAX > > > >>> > > > > > child elements in a column, otherwise it is just wasting > > > >>> > > > > > space > > > >>> [1]. > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Probably. Though if the individual elements (lists or > > > >>> > > > > strings) > > > >>> are > > > >>> > > > > large, not much space is wasted in proportion, so it may be > > > >>> simpler in > > > >>> > > > > such a case to always create a "Large" type array. > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > [1] I suppose theoretically there might be some > > > >>> > > > > > performance > > > >>> benefits on > > > >>> > > > > > 64-bit architectures to using the native word sizes. > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Concretely, common 64-bit architectures don't do that, as > > > >>> > > > > 32-bit > > > >>> is an > > > >>> > > > > extremely common integer size even in high-performance > code. > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Regards > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Antoine. > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
