Hi Jacob, I, a PMC member, talked to Kenta Murata, a commiter and a Julia user, about this.
We support that you and Julia folks work on arrow/arrow-julia until we have enough PMC members from Julia folks. For example, we'll help IP clearance process to import the latest JuliaData/Arrow.js changes to apache/ and we'll start voting on Julia package release. Thanks, -- kou In <CAKyXBQo2=+NfS=hX6nEDPmMno-bSuXMR+=d-heskgn2mm57...@mail.gmail.com> "Re: Status of Arrow Julia implementation?" on Sun, 11 Apr 2021 23:06:27 -0600, Jacob Quinn <quinn.jac...@gmail.com> wrote: > Micah/Wes, > > Yes, I've been following the rust proposal thread with great interest. I do > think that provides a great path forward: transferring the > JuliaData/Arrow.jl repo to apache/arrow-julia would help to solve the > "package history" technical challenges that in part led to the current > setup and concerns. I think being able to utilize github issues would also > be great; as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's much more traditional/expected > in the Julia ecosystem. > > I think the package could retain an independent versioning scheme. The >> additional process would be voting on release candidates. If the Julia >> folks want to try again and move development to a new, Julia-specific >> apache/* repository and apply the ASF governance to the project, the >> Arrow PMC could probably fast-track making Jacob a committer. In some >> code donations / IP clearance, the contributors for the donated code >> become committers as part of the transaction. >> > > These all sound great and would greatly facilitate a better integration > under ASF governance. These points definitely resolve my main concerns. > > As I commented on the rust thread, I'm mostly interested in the future of > integration testing for rust/julia if they are split out into separate > repos. In the current Julia implementation, we have all the code to read > arrow json, and I just hand-generated the integration test data and > committed them in the repo itself, but it doesn't interface with other > languages (just reads arrow json, produces arrow file, reads arrow file, > compares w/ original arrow json). I'm happy to help work on the details of > what that looks like and pilot some solutions. I think with a solid > inter-repo integration testing framework, we can keep a strong sync between > projects. > > -Jacob > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 5:08 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:07 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > Ok, I've had a chance to discuss with a few other Julia developers and >> > > review various options. I think it's best to drop the Julia code from >> the >> > > physical apache/arrow repo. The extra overhead on development, release >> > > process, and user issue reporting and PR contributing are too much in >> > > addition to the technical challenges that we never resolved involving >> > > including the past Arrow.jl release version git trees in the >> apache/arrow >> > > repo. >> > >> > >> > Hi Jacob, >> > It seems you are on the new thread discussing a proposal for changing >> > Rust's development model. Would the proposal [1] address most of these >> > concerns if Julia was set up in the same way? >> > >> > It seems in the short term the stickiest point would be committer access >> > to the new repos, and I suppose the release mechanics still might be >> > challenging? >> >> I think the package could retain an independent versioning scheme. The >> additional process would be voting on release candidates. If the Julia >> folks want to try again and move development to a new, Julia-specific >> apache/* repository and apply the ASF governance to the project, the >> Arrow PMC could probably fast-track making Jacob a committer. In some >> code donations / IP clearance, the contributors for the donated code >> become committers as part of the transaction. >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Micah >> > >> > [1] >> > >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TyrUP8_UWXqk97a8Hvb1d0UYWigch0HAephIjW7soSI/edit >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:17 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > I went back and read the mailing list discussions from September about >> > > the donation and I would say there was not a clear enough statement >> > > from us about what the donation and IP clearance meant as far as the >> > > future of the Julia codebase. This is partly our fault — we have taken >> > > in 9 other code donations over the last 5 years, and in all cases the >> > > developers understood that they were to move their process to the >> > > Arrow repositories and communications channels. >> > > >> > > It did not occur to me at all that the code that you were putting in >> > > the Arrow repository would get treated like a read-only fork that you >> > > update periodically. If I had realized that, we wouldn't be in this >> > > situation. >> > > >> > > As a reminder about what Arrow and the ASF are all about: Community >> > > over Code. We think that building a collaborative, open community that >> > > works and plans together in public, makes decisions based on consensus >> > > with clear meritocratic ("doers decide") governance is the best way to >> > > build this project. The concerns that you have around the timing and >> > > frequency of releases for the Julia codebase are in my mind easy to >> > > resolve, and if you had indicated that having a customized process for >> > > Julia releases was a condition for your joining the community >> > > wholeheartedly, we would have been happy to help. I think that the >> > > benefits of common CI/CD infrastructure and opportunities to build >> > > deeper integrations between the Julia implementation and the other >> > > implementations (imagine... Julia kernels running in DataFusion?) >> > > would outweigh the sense of "loss of control" from developing within a >> > > larger project. >> > > >> > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:16 AM Jacob Quinn <quinn.jac...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Responses inline below: >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:46 PM Jorge Cardoso Leitão < >> > > > jorgecarlei...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi, >> > > > > >> > > > > > you all did not attempt to work in the community for any >> meaningful >> > > > > amount of time and >> > > > > are choosing not to try based on the perception that it will create >> > > > > unacceptable overhead for you >> > > > > >> > > > > It is not self-evident to me that Julia's community was >> sufficiently >> > > > > informed about what they >> > > > > had to give in in terms of process and release management when >> merging >> > > / >> > > > > donating. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Yes, it was pretty unclear what the process was if we needed to do >> any >> > > kind >> > > > of patch release. I know that has been sorted out better recently, >> but >> > > back >> > > > in November, it didn't really seem like an option (i.e. independent >> > > > language patch releases). >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > IMO this is a plausible explanation as to why the donation was >> made and >> > > > > then later abandoned. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > I'll just note that the "abandonment" can only be a perception from >> the >> > > > apache/arrow side of things, but as I mentioned above, I also tried >> to >> > > > clearly state in the julia/Arrow/README that the development process >> > > would >> > > > continue with the JuliaData/Arrow.jl repo as the main "dev" branch, >> with >> > > > changes being upstreamed to the apache/arrow repo, which was followed >> > > > through, having an upstream of commits right before the 3.0.0 >> release, >> > > and >> > > > I was planning on doing the same soon for the 4.0.0 release. That is >> to >> > > > say, the Julia implementation has continued progressing forward quite >> > > > rapidly, IMO, but I can see that perhaps apache/arrow repo members >> may >> > > have >> > > > viewed it as "abandoned". >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > I do not fully understand why the pain points Jacob mentioned were >> not >> > > > > brought up to the mailing list sooner, though. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > To be honest and frank, I didn't have pain points with the >> development >> > > > process I outlined when the code was donated and as stated in the >> README. >> > > > That was the process that made the donation possible and I imagined >> would >> > > > work well going forward, and has, until this thread started and it >> was >> > > > pointed out that this process isn't viable. The pain points were >> > > discussed >> > > > with the initial code donation, but in my mind were resolved with the >> > > > development process that was decided upon. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > This made us unable to potentially take corrective measures. I >> think >> > > that >> > > > > this is why everyone was taken a bit by surprise with this. >> > > > > >> > > > > Best, >> > > > > Jorge >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:18 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > hi Jacob — sorry to hear that. It's a bummer that you all did not >> > > > > > attempt to work in the community for any meaningful amount of >> time >> > > and >> > > > > > are choosing not to try based on the perception that it will >> create >> > > > > > unacceptable overhead for you. I believe the benefits would >> outweigh >> > > > > > the costs, but I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Can you prepare a pull request to do the requisite repository >> > > surgery? >> > > > > > I hope the development goes well in the future and look forward >> to >> > > > > > seeing folks from the Julia ecosystem engaged here on growing the >> > > > > > Arrow ecosystem. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > Wes >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 3:03 PM Jacob Quinn < >> quinn.jac...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ok, I've had a chance to discuss with a few other Julia >> developers >> > > and >> > > > > > > review various options. I think it's best to drop the Julia >> code >> > > from >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > physical apache/arrow repo. The extra overhead on development, >> > > release >> > > > > > > process, and user issue reporting and PR contributing are too >> much >> > > in >> > > > > > > addition to the technical challenges that we never resolved >> > > involving >> > > > > > > including the past Arrow.jl release version git trees in the >> > > > > apache/arrow >> > > > > > > repo. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We're still very much committed to working on the Julia >> > > implementation >> > > > > > and >> > > > > > > participating in the broader arrow community. I've enjoyed >> > > following >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > user/dev mailing lists and will continue to do so. We monitor >> > > format >> > > > > > > proposals and try to implement new functionality as quickly as >> > > > > possible. >> > > > > > We >> > > > > > > got the initial arrow flight proto code generated just last >> night >> > > in >> > > > > > fact. >> > > > > > > I'd still like to explore official integration with the archery >> > > test >> > > > > > suite >> > > > > > > to solidify the Julia implementation with integration tests; I >> > > think >> > > > > that >> > > > > > > would be very valuable for long-term confidence in the >> > > cross-language >> > > > > > > support of the Julia implementation. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We realize one of the main implications will probably be >> dropping >> > > Julia >> > > > > > > from the list of "official implementations". We're encouraged >> by >> > > the >> > > > > many >> > > > > > > users who have already started using the Julia implementation >> and >> > > will >> > > > > > > strive to maintain a high rate of issue responsiveness and >> feature >> > > > > > > development to maintain project confidence. If there's a >> > > possibility of >> > > > > > > being included somewhere as an "unofficial" or "semi-official" >> > > > > > > implementation, we'd love to still be bundled with the broader >> > > arrow >> > > > > > > project somehow, like, for example, showing how Julia >> integrates >> > > with >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > archery test suite, once the work there is done. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -Jacob >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:10 PM Wes McKinney < >> wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Also, on the issue that there are no Julia-focused PMC >> members — >> > > note >> > > > > > > > that I helped the JavaScript folks make their own independent >> > > > > releases >> > > > > > > > for quite a while: called the votes (e.g. [1]), helped get >> > > people to >> > > > > > > > verify and vote on the releases. After a time, it was >> decided to >> > > stop >> > > > > > > > releasing independently because there wasn't enough >> development >> > > > > > > > activity to justify it. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1]: >> > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@arrow.apache.org/msg05971.html >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:54 PM Wes McKinney < >> > > wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > hi Jacob, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:18 PM Jacob Quinn < >> > > > > quinn.jac...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I can comment as the primary apache arrow liaison for the >> > > > > Arrow.jl >> > > > > > > > > > repository and original code donator. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I apologize for the "surprise", but I commented a few >> times >> > > in >> > > > > > various >> > > > > > > > > > places and put a snippet in the README >> > > > > > > > > > < >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/master/julia/Arrow#difference-between-this-code-and-the-juliadataarrowjl-repository >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > about >> > > > > > > > > > the approach I wanted to take w/ the Julia >> implementation in >> > > > > terms >> > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > > keeping the JuliaData/Arrow.jl repository as a "dev >> branch" >> > > of >> > > > > > sorts >> > > > > > > > of the >> > > > > > > > > > apache/arrow code, upstreaming changes periodically. >> There's >> > > > > even a >> > > > > > > > script >> > > > > > > > > > < >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> https://github.com/JuliaData/Arrow.jl/blob/main/scripts/update_apache_arrow_code.jl >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I wrote to mostly automate this upstreaming. I realize >> now >> > > that I >> > > > > > > > didn't >> > > > > > > > > > consider the "Arrow PMC" position on this kind of setup >> or >> > > seek >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > > affirm >> > > > > > > > > > that it would be ok to approach things like this. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The reality is that Julia users are very engrained to >> expect >> > > > > Julia >> > > > > > > > packages >> > > > > > > > > > to live in a single stand-alone github repo, where issues >> > > can be >> > > > > > > > opened, >> > > > > > > > > > and pull requests are welcome. It was hard and still is >> hard >> > > to >> > > > > > imagine >> > > > > > > > > > "turning that off", since I believe we would lose a lot >> of >> > > > > > valuable bug >> > > > > > > > > > reports and first-time contributions. This isn't >> necessarily >> > > any >> > > > > > fault >> > > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > > how the bug report/contribution process is handled for >> the >> > > arrow >> > > > > > > > project >> > > > > > > > > > overall, though I'm also aware that there's a desire to >> make >> > > it >> > > > > > easier >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > < >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> https://lists.apache.org/x/thread.html/r8817dfba08ef8daa210956db69d513fd27b7a751d28fb8f27e39cc7e@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > > > it currently requires more and different effort than >> Julia >> > > users >> > > > > > are >> > > > > > > > used >> > > > > > > > > > to. I think it's more from how open, welcoming, and how >> > > strong >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > culture >> > > > > > > > > > is in Julia around encouraging community contributions >> and >> > > the >> > > > > > tight >> > > > > > > > > > integration with github and its open-source project >> > > management >> > > > > > tools. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Well, we are on track to having 1000 different people >> > > contribute to >> > > > > > > > > the project and have over 12,000 issues, so I don't think >> > > there is >> > > > > > > > > evidence that we are failing to attract new contributors or >> > > that >> > > > > > > > > feature requests / bugs aren't being reported. The way >> that we >> > > work >> > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > _different_, so adapting to the Apache process will require >> > > change. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Additionally, I was and still am concerned about the >> overall >> > > > > > release >> > > > > > > > > > process of the apache/arrow project. I know there have >> been >> > > > > efforts >> > > > > > > > there >> > > > > > > > > > as well to make it easier for individual languages to >> > > release on >> > > > > > their >> > > > > > > > own >> > > > > > > > > > cadence, but just anecdotally, the JuliaData/Arrow.jl has >> > > > > > > > had/needed/wanted >> > > > > > > > > > 10 patch and minor releases since the original code >> donation, >> > > > > > whereas >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > apache/arrow project has had one (3.0.0). This leads to >> some >> > > of >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > concerns I have with restricting development to just the >> > > > > > apache/arrow >> > > > > > > > > > repository: how exactly does the release process work for >> > > > > > individual >> > > > > > > > > > languages who may desire independent releases apart from >> the >> > > > > > quarterly >> > > > > > > > > > overall project releases? I think from the Rust thread I >> > > remember >> > > > > > that >> > > > > > > > you >> > > > > > > > > > just need a group of language contributors to all agree, >> but >> > > what >> > > > > > if >> > > > > > > > I'm >> > > > > > > > > > the only "active" Julia contributor? It's also unclear >> what >> > > the >> > > > > > > > > > expectations are for actual development: with the >> original >> > > code >> > > > > > > > donation >> > > > > > > > > > PRs, I know Neal "reviewed" the PRs, but perhaps missed >> the >> > > > > details >> > > > > > > > around >> > > > > > > > > > how I proposed development continue going forward. Is it >> > > required >> > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > have a >> > > > > > > > > > certain number of reviews before merging? On the Julia >> side, >> > > I >> > > > > can >> > > > > > try >> > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > encourage/push for those who have contributed to the >> > > > > > JuliaData/Arrow.jl >> > > > > > > > > > repository to help review PRs to apache/arrow, but I also >> > > can't >> > > > > > > > guarantee >> > > > > > > > > > we would always have someone to review. It just feels >> pretty >> > > > > > awkward >> > > > > > > > if I >> > > > > > > > > > keep needing to ping non-Julia people to "review" a PR to >> > > merge >> > > > > it. >> > > > > > > > Perhaps >> > > > > > > > > > this is just a problem of the overall Julia >> implementation >> > > > > > "smallness" >> > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > terms of contributors, but I'm not sure on the best >> answer >> > > here. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Several things here: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > * If you want to do separate Julia releases, you are free >> to do >> > > > > that, >> > > > > > > > > but you have to follow the process (voting on the mailing >> list, >> > > > > > > > > publishing GPG-signed source artifacts) >> > > > > > > > > * If you had been working "in the community" since >> November, >> > > you >> > > > > > would >> > > > > > > > > probably already be a committer, so there is a >> bootstrapping >> > > here >> > > > > > that >> > > > > > > > > has failed to take place. In the meantime, we are more than >> > > happy >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > help you "earn your wings" (as a committer) as quickly as >> > > possible. >> > > > > > > > > But from my perspective, I see a code donation and two >> other >> > > > > commits, >> > > > > > > > > which isn't enough to make a case for committership. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > So in short, I'm not sure on the best path forward. I >> think >> > > > > > strictly >> > > > > > > > > > restricting development to the apache/arrow physical >> > > repository >> > > > > > would >> > > > > > > > > > actively hurt the progress of the Julia implementation, >> > > whereas >> > > > > it >> > > > > > > > *has* >> > > > > > > > > > been progressing with increasing momentum since first >> > > released. >> > > > > > There >> > > > > > > > are >> > > > > > > > > > posts on the Julia discourse forum, in the Julia slack >> and >> > > zulip >> > > > > > > > > > communities, and quite a few issues/PRs being opened at >> the >> > > > > > > > > > JuliaData/Arrow.jl repository. There have been several >> calls >> > > for >> > > > > > arrow >> > > > > > > > > > flight support, with a member from Julia Computing >> actually >> > > close >> > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > releasing a gRPC client >> > > > > > > > > > <https://github.com/JuliaComputing/gRPCClient.jl> >> > > specifically >> > > > > > > > > > to help with flight support. But in terms of actual >> > > committers, >> > > > > > it's >> > > > > > > > been >> > > > > > > > > > primarily just myself, with a few minor contributions by >> > > others. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I guess the big question that comes to mind is what are >> the >> > > hard >> > > > > > > > > > requirements to be considered an "official >> implementation"? >> > > Does >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > code >> > > > > > > > > > *have* to live in the same physical repo? Or if it >> passed the >> > > > > > series of >> > > > > > > > > > archery integration tests, would that be enough? I >> apologize >> > > for >> > > > > my >> > > > > > > > > > naivete/inexperience on all things "apache", but I >> imagine >> > > that's >> > > > > > a big >> > > > > > > > > > part of it: having official development/releases through >> the >> > > > > > > > apache/arrow >> > > > > > > > > > community, though again I'm not exactly sure on the >> formal >> > > > > > processes >> > > > > > > > here? >> > > > > > > > > > I would like to keep Julia as an official implementation, >> > > but I'm >> > > > > > also >> > > > > > > > > > mostly carrying the maintainership alone at the moment >> and >> > > want >> > > > > to >> > > > > > be >> > > > > > > > > > realistic with the future of the project. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The critical matter is whether the development/maintenance >> > > work is >> > > > > > > > > conducted by the "Arrow community" in accordance with the >> > > Apache >> > > > > Way, >> > > > > > > > > which is to say individuals collaborating with each other >> on >> > > Apache >> > > > > > > > > channels (for communication and development) and avoiding >> the >> > > bad >> > > > > > > > > patterns you see sometimes in other communities (e.g. >> > > inconsistent >> > > > > > > > > openness). >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It's fine — really, no pressure — if you want to be >> > > independent and >> > > > > > do >> > > > > > > > > things your own way, you just have to be clear that you are >> > > > > > > > > independent and not operating as part of the Apache Arrow >> > > > > community. >> > > > > > > > > You can't have it both ways, though. No hard feelings >> whatever >> > > you >> > > > > > > > > decide, but the current "dump code over the wall >> occasionally" >> > > > > > > > > approach but work on independent channels is not >> compatible. >> > > > > Building >> > > > > > > > > healthy open source communities is hard, but this way has >> been >> > > > > shown >> > > > > > > > > to work well, which is why I've spent the last 6 years >> working >> > > hard >> > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > bring people together to build this project and ecosystem! >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you want to maintain a test harness here to verify an >> > > > > independent >> > > > > > > > > Julia implementation, that's fine, too. I'm disappointed >> that >> > > > > things >> > > > > > > > > failed to bootstrap after the code donation, so I want to >> see >> > > if we >> > > > > > > > > can course correct quickly or if not decide to go our >> separate >> > > > > ways. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > > > Wes >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I'm open to discussion and ideas on the best way forward. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -Jacob >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:03 PM Wes McKinney < >> > > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > hi folks, >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I was very surprised today to learn that the Julia >> Arrow >> > > > > > > > > > > implementation has continued operating more or less >> like an >> > > > > > > > > > > independent open source project since the code donation >> > > last >> > > > > > > > November: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/JuliaData/Arrow.jl/commits/main >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > There may have been a misunderstanding about what was >> > > expected >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > > > > > occur after the code donation, but it's problematic >> for a >> > > bunch >> > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > > > reasons (IP lineage / governance / community >> development) >> > > to >> > > > > have >> > > > > > > > work >> > > > > > > > > > > happening on the implementation "outside the >> community". >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > In any case, what is done is done, so the Arrow PMC's >> > > position >> > > > > on >> > > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > > > > would be roughly to regard the work as a hard fork of >> > > what's in >> > > > > > > > Apache >> > > > > > > > > > > Arrow, which given its development activity is more or >> less >> > > > > > inactive >> > > > > > > > > > > [1]. (I had actually thought the project was simply >> > > inactive >> > > > > > after >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > code donation) >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > The critical question now is, is there interest from >> Julia >> > > > > > developers >> > > > > > > > > > > in working "in the community", which is to say: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > * Having development discussions on ASF channels >> (mailing >> > > list, >> > > > > > > > > > > GitHub, JIRA), planning and communicating in the open >> > > > > > > > > > > * Doing all development in ASF GitHub repositories >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > The answer to the question may be "no" (which is okay), >> > > but if >> > > > > > that's >> > > > > > > > > > > the case, I don't think we should be giving the >> impression >> > > that >> > > > > > we >> > > > > > > > > > > have an official Julia implementation that is >> developed and >> > > > > > > > maintained >> > > > > > > > > > > by the community (and so my argument would be >> > > unfortunately to >> > > > > > drop >> > > > > > > > > > > the donated code from the project). >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is "yes", there needs to be a hard >> > > commitment to >> > > > > > move >> > > > > > > > > > > development to Apache channels and not look back. We >> would >> > > also >> > > > > > need >> > > > > > > > > > > to figure out what to do to document and synchronize >> the >> > > new IP >> > > > > > > > that's >> > > > > > > > > > > been created since the code donation. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > > > > > Wes >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > [1]: >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/commits/master/julia/Arrow >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >>
