Thanks Krisztián and Wes, I've gone ahead and started registering myself on all the packaging sites.
Is there any review process when adding my GPG key to the SVN file? [1] doesn't seem to mention explicitly. Thanks, Micah [1] https://www.apache.org/dev/version-control.html#https-svn On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 5:01 PM Krisztián Szűcs <szucs.kriszt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:52 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? >> > Sure, I'll be available next week. We can also grant access to > https://github.com/ursa-labs/crossbow because configuring all > the CI backends can be time consuming. > >> >> > 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. >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >> >> > > > > > >>> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >
