jorisvandenbossche commented on issue #40166: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/40166#issuecomment-1969385119
When it comes to "quality of life" while developing pyarrow locally, I would personally prioritize improving our build system to have proper rebuilds (https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/36411#issuecomment-1753704373), but of course I am also biased because not using Windows and not seeing this issue locally. And improving build times for Ci is definitely important as well. The previous time we worked on splitting `pyarrow.lib` I brought up the back-compat issue for people (c)importing from there, see https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/10162#issuecomment-831829432 and the comments below. Of course we can decide to break that once in a release, but I would still prefer we have a clearer story about how we recommend to use pyarrow in those cases. There might also be some smaller things we could already split off that are less controversial / less publicly used (for example `benchmark.pxi`, although this is only a tiny one-function file and won't help much. A bigger one might be `tensor.pxi`) -- 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]
