I'm fine with going for a 1.0 in the July timeframe.
Regards Antoine. Le 23/05/2020 à 00:18, Wes McKinney a écrit : > That sounds fine to me, mostly was curious about what others thought. > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 5:01 PM Neal Richardson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm not convinced (but open to persuasion) that ARROW-8860 alone merits the >> effort of a patch release. It's unfortunate but has a number of >> workarounds/alternatives, and it's arguably not a regression but rather a >> bug in a new feature. Plus, there are (unofficial) nightly Python and R >> packages available for anyone who must have a fix right away. >> >> Personally, I'd rather see us focus our efforts on getting a rock-solid 1.0 >> out the door in 5-6 weeks time. >> >> Neal >> >> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 1:50 PM Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Given some of the biggish projects (eg C++ kernels ARROW-8792) ongoing I'd >>> be slightly concerned about cutting a release out of master right away >>> until a little more time has passed, but I can see arguments both ways >>> >>> On Fri, May 22, 2020, 3:40 PM Krisztián Szűcs <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The amount of effort required to create a patch release is comparable >>>> to a minor release. How about we should create a 0.18 minor release >>>> instead? >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:54 PM Wes McKinney <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In light of ARROW-8860 and perhaps some other critical bugs that have >>>>> been reported, and since our releases have been going more smoothly, >>>>> what do people think about doing another patch release in a week or >>>>> two? >>>> >>>
