zeroshade opened a new pull request, #35077:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/35077

   <!--
   Thanks for opening a pull request!
   If this is your first pull request you can find detailed information on how 
   to contribute here:
     * [New Contributor's 
Guide](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/guide/step_by_step/pr_lifecycle.html#reviews-and-merge-of-the-pull-request)
     * [Contributing 
Overview](https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/overview.html)
   
   
   If this is not a [minor 
PR](https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#Minor-Fixes). 
Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? 
https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose
   
   Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the 
[Openness](http://theapacheway.com/open/#:~:text=Openness%20allows%20new%20users%20the,must%20happen%20in%20the%20open.)
 of the Apache Arrow project.
   
   Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format?
   
       GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}
   
   or
   
       MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}
   
   In the case of PARQUET issues on JIRA the title also supports:
   
       PARQUET-${JIRA_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}
   
   -->
   
   ### Rationale for this change
   In the conda release verification we saw an error failure due to "build 
constraints exclude all files" in the `memory/mallocator` directory. This is 
easily fixed by adding a `doc.go` file with a package documentation and no 
build constraint on it to the directory. While here, to ensure everything is 
handled correctly, the `cgo` constraint was added to the default `mallocator` 
tagged files (and `!cgo` to the defaults) so that it's explicit rather than 
implicit (by virtue of importing mallocator which requires cgo).
   
   This should, hopefully, also fix the other macos verification failure by 
ensuring the Time64 nanosecond parsing test doesn't just drop the extraneous 0.
   
   <!--
    Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in 
the issue then this section is not needed.
    Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your 
changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.  
   -->
   
   ### What changes are included in this PR?
   
   <!--
   There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is 
sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR.
   -->
   
   ### Are there any user-facing changes?
   There shouldn't be.
   
   <!--
   If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be 
updated before approving the PR.
   -->
   
   <!--
   If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please uncomment the line 
below and explain which changes are breaking.
   -->
   <!-- **This PR includes breaking changes to public APIs.** -->
   
   <!--
   Please uncomment the line below (and provide explanation) if the changes fix 
either (a) a security vulnerability, (b) a bug that caused incorrect or invalid 
data to be produced, or (c) a bug that causes a crash (even when the API 
contract is upheld). We use this to highlight fixes to issues that may affect 
users without their knowledge. For this reason, fixing bugs that cause errors 
don't count, since those are usually obvious.
   -->
   <!-- **This PR contains a "Critical Fix".** -->


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to