I'll spend some time tonight on it and if I can't get round trip working I'll handle reverting
On Sunday, July 19, 2020, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:33 PM Neal Richardson > <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It sounds like you may have identified a pyarrow bug, which sounds not > > good, though I don't know enough about the broader context to know > whether > > this is (1) worse than 0.17 or (2) release blocking. I defer to y'all who > > know better. > > > > If there are quirks in how Spark handles timezone-naive timestamps, > > shouldn't the fix/workaround go in pyspark, not pyarrow? For what it's > > worth, I dealt with similar Spark timezone issues in R recently: > > https://github.com/sparklyr/sparklyr/issues/2439 I handled with it (in > > sparklyr, not the arrow R package) by always setting a timezone when > > sending data to Spark. Not ideal but it made the numbers "right". > > Since people are running this code in production we need to be careful > about disrupting them. Unfortunately I'm at the limit of how much time > I can spend on this, but releasing with ARROW-9223 as is (without > being partially or fully reverted) makes me deeply uncomfortable. So I > hope the matter can be resolved. > > > Neal > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:13 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Honestly I think reverting is the best option. This change evidently > > > needs more time to "season" and perhaps this is motivation to enhance > > > test coverage in a number of places. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:11 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I am OK with any solution that doesn't delay the production of the > > > > next RC by more than 24 hours > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:08 PM Micah Kornfield < > emkornfi...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If I read the example right it looks like constructing from python > > > types > > > > > isn't keeping timezones into in place? I can try make a patch that > > > fixes > > > > > that tonight or would the preference be to revert my patch (note I > > > think > > > > > another bug with a prior bug was fixed in my PR as well) > > > > > > > > > > -Micah > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, July 19, 2020, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think I see the problem now: > > > > > > > > > > > > In [40]: parr > > > > > > Out[40]: > > > > > > 0 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00-08:00} > > > > > > 1 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000001-08:00} > > > > > > 2 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000002-08:00} > > > > > > dtype: object > > > > > > > > > > > > In [41]: parr[0]['f0'] > > > > > > Out[41]: datetime.datetime(1969, 12, 31, 16, 0, tzinfo=<DstTzInfo > > > > > > 'America/Los_Angeles' PST-1 day, 16:00:00 STD>) > > > > > > > > > > > > In [42]: pa.array(parr) > > > > > > Out[42]: > > > > > > <pyarrow.lib.StructArray object at 0x7f0893706a60> > > > > > > -- is_valid: all not null > > > > > > -- child 0 type: timestamp[us] > > > > > > [ > > > > > > 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000000, > > > > > > 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000001, > > > > > > 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000002 > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > In [43]: pa.array(parr).field(0).type > > > > > > Out[43]: TimestampType(timestamp[us]) > > > > > > > > > > > > On 0.17.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > In [8]: arr = pa.array([0, 1, 2], type=pa.timestamp('us', > > > > > > 'America/Los_Angeles')) > > > > > > > > > > > > In [9]: arr > > > > > > Out[9]: > > > > > > <pyarrow.lib.TimestampArray object at 0x7f9dede69d00> > > > > > > [ > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000, > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000001, > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000002 > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > In [10]: struct_arr = pa.StructArray.from_arrays([arr], > names=['f0']) > > > > > > > > > > > > In [11]: struct_arr > > > > > > Out[11]: > > > > > > <pyarrow.lib.StructArray object at 0x7f9ded0016e0> > > > > > > -- is_valid: all not null > > > > > > -- child 0 type: timestamp[us, tz=America/Los_Angeles] > > > > > > [ > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000, > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000001, > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000002 > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > In [12]: struct_arr.to_pandas() > > > > > > Out[12]: > > > > > > 0 {'f0': 1970-01-01 00:00:00} > > > > > > 1 {'f0': 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000001} > > > > > > 2 {'f0': 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000002} > > > > > > dtype: object > > > > > > > > > > > > In [13]: pa.array(struct_arr.to_pandas()) > > > > > > Out[13]: > > > > > > <pyarrow.lib.StructArray object at 0x7f9ded003210> > > > > > > -- is_valid: all not null > > > > > > -- child 0 type: timestamp[us] > > > > > > [ > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000, > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000001, > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000002 > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > In [14]: pa.array(struct_arr.to_pandas()).type > > > > > > Out[14]: StructType(struct<f0: timestamp[us]>) > > > > > > > > > > > > So while the time zone is getting stripped in both cases, the > failure > > > > > > to round trip is a problem. If we are going to attach the time > zone > > > in > > > > > > to_pandas() then we need to respect it when going the other way. > > > > > > > > > > > > This looks like a regression to me and so I'm inclined to revise > my > > > > > > vote on the release to -0/-1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:46 PM Wes McKinney < > wesmck...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah I forgot that this is a "feature" of nanosecond timestamps > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In [21]: arr = pa.array([0, 1, 2], type=pa.timestamp('us', > > > > > > > 'America/Los_Angeles')) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In [22]: struct_arr = pa.StructArray.from_arrays([arr], > > > names=['f0']) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In [23]: struct_arr.to_pandas() > > > > > > > Out[23]: > > > > > > > 0 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00-08:00} > > > > > > > 1 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000001-08:00} > > > > > > > 2 {'f0': 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000002-08:00} > > > > > > > dtype: object > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So this is working as intended, such as it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:40 PM Wes McKinney < > wesmck...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There seems to be other broken StructArray stuff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In [14]: arr = pa.array([0, 1, 2], type=pa.timestamp('ns', > > > > > > > > 'America/Los_Angeles')) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In [15]: struct_arr = pa.StructArray.from_arrays([arr], > > > names=['f0']) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In [16]: struct_arr > > > > > > > > Out[16]: > > > > > > > > <pyarrow.lib.StructArray object at 0x7f089370f590> > > > > > > > > -- is_valid: all not null > > > > > > > > -- child 0 type: timestamp[ns, tz=America/Los_Angeles] > > > > > > > > [ > > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000, > > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000001, > > > > > > > > 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000002 > > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In [17]: struct_arr.to_pandas() > > > > > > > > Out[17]: > > > > > > > > 0 {'f0': 0} > > > > > > > > 1 {'f0': 1} > > > > > > > > 2 {'f0': 2} > > > > > > > > dtype: object > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All in all it appears that this part of the project needs > some > > > TLC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:16 PM Wes McKinney < > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the problem is that time zones are really finicky > > > comparing > > > > > > > > > Spark (which uses a localtime interpretation of timestamps > > > without > > > > > > > > > time zone) and Arrow (which has naive timestamps -- a > concept > > > similar > > > > > > > > > but different from the SQL concept TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME > ZONE > > > -- and > > > > > > > > > tz-aware timestamps). So somewhere there is a time zone > being > > > > > > stripped > > > > > > > > > or applied/localized which may result in the transferred > data > > > to/from > > > > > > > > > Spark being shifted by the time zone offset. I think it's > > > important > > > > > > > > > that we determine what the problem is -- if it's a problem > > > that has > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > be fixed in Arrow (and it's not clear to me that it is) > it's > > > worth > > > > > > > > > spending some time to understand what's going on to avoid > the > > > > > > > > > possibility of patch release on account of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 6:12 PM Neal Richardson > > > > > > > > > <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it’s a display problem, should it block the release? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 2020, at 3:57 PM, Wes McKinney < > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I opened https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/ARROW-9525 > > > > > > about the > > > > > > > > > > > display problem. My guess is that there are other > problems > > > > > > lurking > > > > > > > > > > > here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:54 PM Wes McKinney < > > > > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> hi Bryan, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> This is a display bug > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> In [6]: arr = pa.array([0, 1, 2], > type=pa.timestamp('ns', > > > > > > > > > > >> 'America/Los_Angeles')) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> In [7]: arr.view('int64') > > > > > > > > > > >> Out[7]: > > > > > > > > > > >> <pyarrow.lib.Int64Array object at 0x7fd1b8aaef30> > > > > > > > > > > >> [ > > > > > > > > > > >> 0, > > > > > > > > > > >> 1, > > > > > > > > > > >> 2 > > > > > > > > > > >> ] > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> In [8]: arr > > > > > > > > > > >> Out[8]: > > > > > > > > > > >> <pyarrow.lib.TimestampArray object at 0x7fd1b8aae6e0> > > > > > > > > > > >> [ > > > > > > > > > > >> 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000, > > > > > > > > > > >> 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000001, > > > > > > > > > > >> 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000002 > > > > > > > > > > >> ] > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> In [9]: arr.to_pandas() > > > > > > > > > > >> Out[9]: > > > > > > > > > > >> 0 1969-12-31 16:00:00-08:00 > > > > > > > > > > >> 1 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000000001-08:00 > > > > > > > > > > >> 2 1969-12-31 16:00:00.000000002-08:00 > > > > > > > > > > >> dtype: datetime64[ns, America/Los_Angeles] > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> the repr of TimestampArray doesn't take into account > the > > > > > > timezone > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> In [10]: arr[0] > > > > > > > > > > >> Out[10]: <pyarrow.TimestampScalar: > Timestamp('1969-12-31 > > > > > > > > > > >> 16:00:00-0800', tz='America/Los_Angeles')> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> So if it's incorrect, the problem is happening > somewhere > > > before > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > >> while the StructArray is being created. If I had to > guess > > > it's > > > > > > caused > > > > > > > > > > >> by the tzinfo of the datetime.datetime values not > being > > > handled > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > > >> way that they were before > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:19 PM Wes McKinney < > > > > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Well this is not good and pretty disappointing given > > > that we > > > > > > had nearly a month to sort through the implications of Micah’s > > > patch. We > > > > > > should try to resolve this ASAP > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 5:10 PM Bryan Cutler < > > > > > > cutl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +0 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I ran verification script for binaries and then > source, > > > as > > > > > > below, and both > > > > > > > > > > >>>> look good > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ARROW_TMPDIR=/tmp/arrow-test TEST_DEFAULT=0 > > > TEST_SOURCE=1 > > > > > > TEST_CPP=1 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> TEST_PYTHON=1 TEST_JAVA=1 TEST_INTEGRATION_CPP=1 > > > > > > TEST_INTEGRATION_JAVA=1 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> dev/release/verify-release-candidate.sh source > 1.0.0 1 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I tried to patch Spark locally to verify the recent > > > change in > > > > > > nested > > > > > > > > > > >>>> timestamps and was not able to get things working > quite > > > > > > right, but I'm not > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure if the problem is in Spark, Arrow or my patch - > > > hence my > > > > > > vote of +0. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Here is what I'm seeing > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ``` > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Input as datetime) > > > > > > > > > > >>>> datetime.datetime(2018, 3, 10, 0, 0) > > > > > > > > > > >>>> datetime.datetime(2018, 3, 15, 0, 0) > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Struct Array) > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- is_valid: all not null > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- child 0 type: timestamp[us, > tz=America/Los_Angeles] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-10 00:00:00.000000, > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-10 00:00:00.000000 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- child 1 type: timestamp[us, > tz=America/Los_Angeles] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-15 00:00:00.000000, > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-15 00:00:00.000000 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Flattened Arrays) > > > > > > > > > > >>>> types [TimestampType(timestamp[us, > > > tz=America/Los_Angeles]), > > > > > > > > > > >>>> TimestampType(timestamp[us, > tz=America/Los_Angeles])] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [<pyarrow.lib.TimestampArray object at > 0x7ffbbd88f520> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-10 00:00:00.000000, > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-10 00:00:00.000000 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ], <pyarrow.lib.TimestampArray object at > 0x7ffba958be50> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-15 00:00:00.000000, > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2018-03-15 00:00:00.000000 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ]] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Pandas Conversion) > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 0 2018-03-09 16:00:00-08:00 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1 2018-03-09 16:00:00-08:00 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> dtype: datetime64[ns, America/Los_Angeles], > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 0 2018-03-14 17:00:00-07:00 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1 2018-03-14 17:00:00-07:00 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> dtype: datetime64[ns, America/Los_Angeles]] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ``` > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Based on output of existing a correct timestamp > udf, it > > > looks > > > > > > like the > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pyarrow Struct Array values are wrong and that's > carried > > > > > > through the > > > > > > > > > > >>>> flattened arrays, causing the Pandas values to have > a > > > > > > negative offset. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Here is output from a working udf with timestamp, > the > > > pyarrow > > > > > > Array > > > > > > > > > > >>>> displays in UTC time, I believe. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ``` > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Timestamp Array) > > > > > > > > > > >>>> type timestamp[us, tz=America/Los_Angeles] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ > > > > > > > > > > >>>> [ > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 1969-01-01 09:01:01.000000 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Pandas Conversion) > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 0 1969-01-01 01:01:01-08:00 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Name: _0, dtype: datetime64[ns, America/Los_Angeles] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Timezone Localized) > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 0 1969-01-01 01:01:01 > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Name: _0, dtype: datetime64[ns] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> ``` > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I'll have to dig in further at another time and > debug > > > where > > > > > > the values go > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrong. > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 9:51 PM Micah Kornfield < > > > > > > emkornfi...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Ran wheel and binary tests on ubuntu 19.04 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:25 PM Neal Richardson < > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> In addition to the usual verification on > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7787, I've > > > > > > successfully staged the > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> R > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> binary artifacts on Windows ( > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/r-windows/ > rtools-packages/pull/126 > > > ), > > > > > > macOS ( > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/autobrew/homebrew-core/pull/12 > ), > > > and > > > > > > Linux ( > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > https://github.com/ursa-labs/arrow-r-nightly/actions/runs/ > > > > > > 172977277) > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the release candidate. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> And I agree with the judgment about skipping a JS > > > release > > > > > > artifact. Looks > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> like there hasn't been a code change since > October so > > > > > > there's no point. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Neal > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:37 AM Wes McKinney < > > > > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I see the JS failures as well. I think it is a > > > failure > > > > > > localized to > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> newer Node versions since our JavaScript CI works > > > fine. I > > > > > > don't think > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> it should block the release given the lack of > > > development > > > > > > activity in > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> JavaScript [1] -- if any JS devs are concerned > about > > > > > > publishing an > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> artifact then we can skip pushing it to NPM > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> @Ryan it seems it may be something environment > > > related on > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> machine, I'm on Ubuntu 18.04 and have not seen > this. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * Python 3.8 wheel's tests are failed. 3.5, 3.6 > > > and 3.7 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> are passed. It seems that -larrow and > > > -larrow_python > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Cython are failed. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I suspect this is related to > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/commit/ > > > > > > 120c21f4bf66d2901b3a353a1f67bac3c3355924#diff- > > > > > > 0f69784b44040448d17d0e4e8a641fe8 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> , > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> but I don't think it's a blocking issue > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [1]: > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/commits/master/js > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 9:42 AM Ryan Murray < > > > > > > rym...@dremio.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I've tested Java and it looks good. However the > > > verify > > > > > > script keeps > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> on > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> bailing with protobuf related errors: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > 'cpp/build/orc_ep-prefix/src/orc_ep-build/c++/src/orc_ > > > > > > proto.pb.cc' > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> friends cant find protobuf definitions. A bit > odd as > > > > > > cmake can see > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> protobuf > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> headers and builds directly off master work just > > > fine. > > > > > > Has anyone > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> else > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> experienced this? I am on ubutnu 18.04 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:49 AM Antoine Pitrou > < > > > > > > anto...@python.org> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> +1 (binding). I tested on Ubuntu 18.04. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> * Wheels verification went fine. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> * Source verification went fine with CUDA > enabled > > > and > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> TEST_INTEGRATION_JS=0 TEST_JS=0. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I didn't test the binaries. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Antoine. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Le 17/07/2020 à 03:41, Krisztián Szűcs a écrit > : > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I would like to propose the second release > > > candidate > > > > > > (RC1) of > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Apache > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Arrow version 1.0.0. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This is a major release consisting of 826 > > > resolved JIRA > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> issues[1]. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The verification of the first release > candidate > > > (RC0) > > > > > > has failed > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [0], and > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the packaging scripts were unable to produce > two > > > > > > wheels. Compared > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to RC0 this release candidate includes > additional > > > > > > patches for the > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> following bugs: ARROW-9506, ARROW-9504, > > > ARROW-9497, > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ARROW-9500, ARROW-9499. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This release candidate is based on commit: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> bc0649541859095ee77d03a7b891ea8d6e2fd641 [2] > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The source release rc1 is hosted at [3]. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The binary artifacts are hosted at > [4][5][6][7]. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The changelog is located at [8]. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please download, verify checksums and > signatures, > > > run > > > > > > the unit > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> tests, > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and vote on the release. See [9] for how to > > > validate a > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> candidate. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this as Apache Arrow 1.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this as Apache Arrow > 1.0.0 > > > > > > because... > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [0]: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7778#issuecomment- > > > > > > 659065370 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1]: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > > > > > > 3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20%28Resolved%2C% > 20Closed%29%20AND% > > > > > > 20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [2]: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/ > > > > > > bc0649541859095ee77d03a7b891ea8d6e2fd641 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [3]: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/ > > > > > > dist/dev/arrow/apache-arrow-1.0.0-rc1 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [4]: https://bintray.com/apache/ > > > > > > arrow/centos-rc/1.0.0-rc1 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [5]: https://bintray.com/apache/ > > > > > > arrow/debian-rc/1.0.0-rc1 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [6]: https://bintray.com/apache/ > > > > > > arrow/python-rc/1.0.0-rc1 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [7]: https://bintray.com/apache/ > > > > > > arrow/ubuntu-rc/1.0.0-rc1 > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [8]: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/ > > > > > > bc0649541859095ee77d03a7b891ea8d6e2fd641/CHANGELOG.md > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [9]: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/ > confluence/display/ARROW/How+ > > > > > > to+Verify+Release+Candidates > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >
