Jefffrey opened a new pull request, #11382: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/11382
# Which issue does this PR close? <!-- It is not necessary to raise an issue, but it is encouraged if it is a non-trivial enhancement/bug. If this PR relates to an existing issue, but does not fully resolve it, please change the wording below from "Closes #NNN" to "Relates to #NNN" or "Part of #NNN" to avoid false closing an issue. --> - Closes #11372 # Rationale for this change <!-- 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. Please try to explain the problem you are trying to solve in terms of the user-visible behavior, rather than the implementation. --> We introduced more granular labeling per https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/issues/10435, but I find it too granular; making the categories more broad helps reduce number of labels we actually need and might be more informative (aka more useful). For example, instead of seeing PRs tagged with `arrow-ord` or `arrow-schema` they fall into the more broad category `arrow-core`. # 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. --> Re-organize how we apply labels, as well as introducing new labels. New labels: - arrow-core - arrow-kernels Following labels would go unused (to be archived): - arrow - parquet-derive - parquet-geospatial - arrow-arith - arrow-array - arrow-buffer - arrow-cast - arrow-data - arrow-integration-test - arrow-ord - arrow-schema - arrow-select - arrow-string Some justifications: - arrow: this seems too broad a label considering the whole repository is about arrow; I guess its meant to distinguish from parquet, but parquet has its own label anyway - parquet-derive & geospatial: these arent too active in terms of changes so not much point having their own labels - we have a high volume of parquet variant changes, so decided to keep that separate from overall parquet label - figured to try group into either a "core" (aka underlying mechanisms of how we represent arrays) or "kernels" (aka transformation code) as a good way to logically split - kept file integrations (csv, json, ipc, flight) as is since they are kind of independent from each other - similarly for arrow-row, this implementation stands out on its own so its kept as is # Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests, if so identify these tests)? If this PR claims a performance improvement, please include evidence such as benchmark results. DO NOT simply paste a list of commands ran to verify the code; this is what our CI is for and it pollutes the PR. ONLY explain if testing was included with this PR, or why it wasn't. --> CI changes only. # Are there any significant user-facing changes? <!-- Significant user-facing changes include: - Breaking public API change - Significant change to existing functionality (e.g. function returns something different) These need to be explicitly called out to ensure we have proper documentation if required and to ensure we follow proper semantic versioning. DO NOT restate the changes of this PR; if a bug was fixed and already explained above, we don't need this to be restated as a user-facing change. --> No. -- 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]
