>
> ​Arrow rust implementation is in another repository and has support for
>
Javascript/Webassembly :
>
> https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/tree/master/arrow
>
> The release cadence for the Rust implementation is much higher than for
> the  C++ implementation. Efficiencies might be gained by releasing Rust
> and Javascript point implementations together since then the process of
> creating and verifying signed software would minimize PMC workload.Arrow
> rust implementation is in another repository and has support for
>
Javascript/Webassembly :
>
> https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/tree/master/arrow
>
> The release cadence for the Rust implementation is much higher than for
> the  C++ implementation. Efficiencies might be gained by releasing Rust
> and Javascript point implementations together since then the process of
> creating and verifying signed software would minimize PMC workload.


The biggest challenge with making a web-library for Arrow with WASM is a
performant JS API. I think realistically, we will have a pure JS Arrow
library for a few years. Do you think we could sync the release processes
even if Arrow JS is not in the rust repo? If so, I would love to learn more
about how that process would work.

On Dec 7, 2021 at 03:43:13, Benson Muite <[email protected]> wrote:

> At the moment, the release is not packaged or signed. Thus one can only
> run the tests on the branch in the git repository. A script to do that
> on Linux is available at:
>
> https://github.com/bkmgit/arrow/blob/ARROW-14801/dev/release/verify-js.sh
>
> My understanding is that only PMC members can sign, at the moment not
> many seem to use Javascript extensively. Can create a script for
> generating the Javascript only release source package based on the
> current source packaging and release scripts, but a PMC member would
> need to have this signed and uploaded.
>
> @Dominik - was not aware of arrow-wasm, thanks.
>
> Arrow rust implementation is in another repository and has support for
> Javascript/Webassembly :
>
> https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/tree/master/arrow
>
> The release cadence for the Rust implementation is much higher than for
> the  C++ implementation. Efficiencies might be gained by releasing Rust
> and Javascript point implementations together since then the process of
> creating and verifying signed software would minimize PMC workload.
>
> Benson
>
> On 12/6/21 1:01 AM, Wes McKinney wrote:
>
> hi Dominik — can you provide instructions for how we should verify the
>
> release, aside from checking the GPG signature and checksums?
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 12:41 PM Dominik Moritz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Are you talking about https://github.com/domoritz/arrow-wasm? It
> definitely
>
> > isn’t ready for prime time. The overhead of WASM, some issues with the
> Rust
>
> > implementation (some of which I think will be addressed with the Arrow2
>
> > Rust migration), and the much larger bundle size make it not practical
>
> > right now. As the WASM ecosystem matures, we can reevaluate and maybe
> also
>
> > consider moving only some of the processing in WASM and leave the rest in
>
> > JS. I’m pretty excited about WASM and what it could bring to Arrow
>
> > especially when combined with WebGPU.
>
> >
>
> > Either way, I think we should release the 6.0.2 version soon. @PMC, could
>
> > you vote on the patch release?
>
> >
>
> > On Nov 28, 2021 at 04:33:41, Benson Muite <[email protected]>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Rust implementation can be compiled to WebAssembly and is released
>
> >> biweekly. The Javascript version compiled from Rust may not satisfy all
>
> >> Javascript users, but maybe there could be some collaboration to reduce
>
> >> duplicated efforts?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> On 11/23/21 9:52 PM, Dominik Moritz wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>    Ahh, thank you for the clarification. There are no breaking changes
> in
>
> >>
>
> >> this point release, just fixes.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> @PMC, could you please vote on this point release.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Would anyone volunteer as the release manager with me to give me a
> better
>
> >>
>
> >> understanding of the process?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> On Nov 23, 2021 at 13:09:47, Benson Muite <[email protected]>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-14801
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Rust has its own repository and does frequent point releases:
>
> >>
>
> >>> https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/tree/master/dev/release
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> however, even point releases require 3 PMC binding +1 votes and API
>
> >>
>
> >>> breaking changes can only take place on major releases.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Many of the tests for releases can be automated, possibly relieving
> some
>
> >>
>
> >>> of the PMC burden in the current process.  Judgement on code quality
> and
>
> >>
>
> >>> software license is still required though[1]. Similarly, releases need
>
> >>
>
> >>> to be signed.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> [1] https://infra.apache.org/release-publishing.html
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> On 11/23/21 7:33 PM, Dominik Moritz wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>     I tested Node v14.18.1 and tests pass. I think we can go ahead and
>
> >> make a
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> release.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> @Benson, could you help me update the script to work off of branches. I
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> don’t know what the expected process for release verification is. I’d
> be
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> happy to adopt another process.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Nov 20, 2021 at 09:57:53, Dominik Moritz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Thanks for catching that.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Jest is used for running the tests and jest supports node 14.15. Could
>
> >> we
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> switch to node 14.15 instead of 14.0 for this test?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On Nov 20, 2021 at 05:37:00, Benson Muite <[email protected]
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Hi,
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Tested this on AlmaLinux 8. Following steps:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        export NVM_DIR="`pwd`/.nvm"
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        mkdir -p $NVM_DIR
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        curl -o-
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nvm-sh/nvm/v0.35.3/install.sh | \
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>          PROFILE=/dev/null bash
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        [ -s "$NVM_DIR/nvm.sh" ] && \. "$NVM_DIR/nvm.sh"
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        nvm install --lts
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        npm install -g yarn
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        git clone https://github.com/apache/arrow
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        cd arrow
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        git checkout release-6.0.2-js
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        cd js
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        yarn --frozen-lockfile
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        yarn run-s clean:all lint build
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>        yarn test
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Tests pass.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> yarn 1.22.17
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> npm 8.1.0
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> node 16.13.0
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Tests also pass on
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> node 17.0.0
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Node 14 is supported until 2023, however if one tries to use Node 14,
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> one gets the error:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> [email protected]: The engine "node" is incompatible with this module.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Expected version "^10.13.0 || ^12.13.0 || ^14.15.0 || >=15.0.0". Got
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> "14.0.0"
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> error Found incompatible module.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> The current release verification script could be update to support
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> testing directly from a branch if this will be the point release
>
> >> process
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> in future.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> On 11/20/21 12:25 AM, Dominik Moritz wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Hi,
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> I would like to propose a patch release for Arrow JS. The release is
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> forked
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> off of maint-6.0.x and available at
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/release-6.0.2-js.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> The release contains two fixes for the js bundle:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> ARROW-14773: [JS] Fix sourcemap paths
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/11741>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> ARROW-14774: [JS] Correct package exports
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/11742>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> [ ] +1 Release this as Apache Arrow JS 6.0.2
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> [ ] +0
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this as Apache Arrow JS 6.0.2 because...
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Thank you,
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Dominik
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
>
>

Reply via email to