Hi Kou, Sorry for the slow response here, but it's been great to see how the new Rust process has shaken out and I think it working well. I'd like to move forward with transferring the JuliaData/Arrow.jl repository to apache/arrow-julia and following a similar process to Rust in terms of development/release. I can start on a Julia-specific proposal with specifics.
Thanks for all the help! -Jacob On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 11:56 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I think that we can say the Rust migration is complete once > we merge https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/10096. But > it's a good time to think about the Julia migration. > > Jacob, here is the Rust's new development process: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TyrUP8_UWXqk97a8Hvb1d0UYWigch0HAephIjW7soSI/edit# > > (It seems that an anonymous user deleted a part of it > accidentally.) > > Do you want to use the same development process as the > Rust's one? Do you have any item you want to change? > > > Thanks, > -- > kou > > In <cak7z5t96rapgltnasg6v+hxd7qqreuhxa5xzt7wcdv_gelh...@mail.gmail.com> > "Re: Status of Arrow Julia implementation?" on Sun, 25 Apr 2021 13:34:04 > -0700, > Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It seems the Rust migration is now complete. Do we want to wait to iron > > out the other potential issues? > > > > I think the outstanding ones might be: > > 1. Issue management > > 2. Integration testing > > > > -Micah > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:01 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Jacob, > >> > >> OK. Here is my plan: > >> > >> 1. We wait for the Rust's move to complete > >> 2. We use a process similar to the Rust's move > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -- > >> kou > >> > >> In <cakyxbqrt6yahesuqg8beuh6u58smc95jtgejej2kuy0zrgy...@mail.gmail.com> > >> "Re: Status of Arrow Julia implementation?" on Wed, 14 Apr 2021 > 08:37:41 > >> -0600, > >> Jacob Quinn <quinn.jac...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Thank you kou! I appreciate the help. I'm happy to do whatever is > >> required > >> > to facilitate the moving/donating process from JuliaData/Arrow.jl to > >> > apache/arrow-julia. > >> > > >> > -Jacob > >> > > >> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 7:53 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> 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 > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
