Understood and appreciated. Yeah, it can become a bit of a mess. On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:22 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will do -- there were many C++ and Python-related issues that I think > were put in 1.0.0 / 0.16.0 overly optimistically and so I removed the > Fix Version entirely (some of these had been pushed off 3-4 major > releases ago). I may have removed some Fix Versions from other > components that should have been rolled over -- sorry about that. It's > hard to judge on some issues that have been open for 6-12 months or > more. > > In general I think we should try to be more conservative about what > issues we pre-emptively assign fix versions -- there may be a more > constructive way that we can prioritize issues and distinguish between > "optimistic" / nice-to-have issues and "must do to release" issues. > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:42 PM Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > It would be helpful that when something is assigned to a release and you > > want to push it out, you push it to the next release as opposed to > removing > > a fix version entirely. Thanks! > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:26 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will > > > work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release > > > (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0 > > > columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this > > > back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical > > > path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable? > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to > > > > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done > > > > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of > > > > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't > > > > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, > let's > > > > release 1.0.0 sooner. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson > > > > <neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before > we > > > cast > > > > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of > > > enumerating > > > > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can > get > > > it > > > > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a > 0.17 > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them > as > > > > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release > > > to 10 > > > > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this > is > > > an > > > > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to > > > > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would > we > > > have > > > > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0? > > > > > > > > > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this > > > point? > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Neal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cutl...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out > > > with > > > > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <liya.fa...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jacques, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it. > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the information. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Liya Fan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau < > jacq...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya < > liya.fa...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jacques, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I > would > > > like to > > > > > > > try > > > > > > > > > to resolve them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Liya Fan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau < > > > jacq...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I > think > > > are top > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > mind > > > > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird > incompatibility > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as > pre-1.0 > > > as I > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target > > > release > > > > > > for a > > > > > > > > > > ticket. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have > > > interest in > > > > > > > trying > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > resolve? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson < > > > > > > > > > > neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to > > > start > > > > > > > > mobilizing > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided > that > > > our > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since > > > 0.15, so > > > > > > > we're > > > > > > > > > due > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for > when > > > we most > > > > > > > > > > recently > > > > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of > > > ancient > > > > > > > > > history, > > > > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is > > > time for > > > > > > > 1.0, > > > > > > > > > > let's > > > > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to > > > make sure > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > we've > > > > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we > must > > > > > > resolve > > > > > > > > > > before > > > > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 > release > > > > > > already. > > > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps > some > > > of those > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their > > > areas of > > > > > > > > > expertise > > > > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed > and > > > > > > > > prioritized > > > > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required > tasks for > > > > > > making > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > 1.0 > > > > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > [3]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release > > > > > > > > > > > [4]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
