On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:13 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The process should be well documented at this point but there are a >> number of steps. > > Is [1] the up-to-date documentation for the release? Are there instructions > for the adding the code signing Key to SVN? > > I will make a go of it. i will try to mitigate any internet issues by doing > the process for a cloud instance (I assume that isn't a problem?). >
Setting up a new cloud environment suitable for producing an RC may be time consuming, but you are welcome to try. Krisztian -- are you available next week to help Micah and potentially take over producing the RC if there are issues? > Thanks, > Micah > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Release+Management+Guide > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 8:29 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The process should be well documented at this point but there are a >> number of steps. Note that you need to add your code signing key to >> the KEYS file in SVN (that's not very hard to do). I think it's fine >> to hand off the process to others after the VOTE but it would be >> tricky to have multiple RMs involved with producing the source and >> binary artifacts for the vote >> >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:55 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > SGTM, as well. >> > >> > I should have a little bit of time next week if I can help as RM but I have >> > a couple of concerns: >> > 1. In the past I've had trouble downloading and validating releases. I'm a >> > bit worried, that I might have similar problems doing the necessary >> > uploads. >> > 2. My internet connection will likely be not great, I don't know if this >> > would make it even less likely to be successful. >> > >> > Does it become problematic if somehow I would have to abandon the process >> > mid-release? Is there anyone who could serve as a backup? Are the steps >> > well documented? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Micah >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 4:25 PM Neal Richardson >> > <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > 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. >> > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > >
