It seems the Rust migration is now complete. Do we want to wait to iron out the other potential issues?
I think the outstanding ones might be: 1. Issue management 2. Integration testing -Micah On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:01 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > Hi Jacob, > > OK. Here is my plan: > > 1. We wait for the Rust's move to complete > 2. We use a process similar to the Rust's move > > > Thanks, > -- > kou > > In <cakyxbqrt6yahesuqg8beuh6u58smc95jtgejej2kuy0zrgy...@mail.gmail.com> > "Re: Status of Arrow Julia implementation?" on Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:37:41 > -0600, > Jacob Quinn <quinn.jac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thank you kou! I appreciate the help. I'm happy to do whatever is > required > > to facilitate the moving/donating process from JuliaData/Arrow.jl to > > apache/arrow-julia. > > > > -Jacob > > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 7:53 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Jacob, > >> > >> I, a PMC member, talked to Kenta Murata, a commiter and a > >> Julia user, about this. > >> > >> We support that you and Julia folks work on > >> arrow/arrow-julia until we have enough PMC members from > >> Julia folks. For example, we'll help IP clearance process to > >> import the latest JuliaData/Arrow.js changes to apache/ and > >> we'll start voting on Julia package release. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -- > >> kou > >> > >> In <CAKyXBQo2=+NfS=hX6nEDPmMno-bSuXMR+=d-heskgn2mm57...@mail.gmail.com> > >> "Re: Status of Arrow Julia implementation?" on Sun, 11 Apr 2021 > 23:06:27 > >> -0600, > >> Jacob Quinn <quinn.jac...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Micah/Wes, > >> > > >> > Yes, I've been following the rust proposal thread with great > interest. I > >> do > >> > think that provides a great path forward: transferring the > >> > JuliaData/Arrow.jl repo to apache/arrow-julia would help to solve the > >> > "package history" technical challenges that in part led to the current > >> > setup and concerns. I think being able to utilize github issues would > >> also > >> > be great; as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's much more > >> traditional/expected > >> > in the Julia ecosystem. > >> > > >> > I think the package could retain an independent versioning scheme. The > >> >> additional process would be voting on release candidates. If the > Julia > >> >> folks want to try again and move development to a new, Julia-specific > >> >> apache/* repository and apply the ASF governance to the project, the > >> >> Arrow PMC could probably fast-track making Jacob a committer. In some > >> >> code donations / IP clearance, the contributors for the donated code > >> >> become committers as part of the transaction. > >> >> > >> > > >> > These all sound great and would greatly facilitate a better > integration > >> > under ASF governance. These points definitely resolve my main > concerns. > >> > > >> > As I commented on the rust thread, I'm mostly interested in the > future of > >> > integration testing for rust/julia if they are split out into separate > >> > repos. In the current Julia implementation, we have all the code to > read > >> > arrow json, and I just hand-generated the integration test data and > >> > committed them in the repo itself, but it doesn't interface with other > >> > languages (just reads arrow json, produces arrow file, reads arrow > file, > >> > compares w/ original arrow json). I'm happy to help work on the > details > >> of > >> > what that looks like and pilot some solutions. I think with a solid > >> > inter-repo integration testing framework, we can keep a strong sync > >> between > >> > projects. > >> > > >> > -Jacob > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 5:08 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:07 PM Micah Kornfield < > emkornfi...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Ok, I've had a chance to discuss with a few other Julia > developers > >> and > >> >> > > review various options. I think it's best to drop the Julia code > >> from > >> >> the > >> >> > > physical apache/arrow repo. The extra overhead on development, > >> release > >> >> > > process, and user issue reporting and PR contributing are too > much > >> in > >> >> > > addition to the technical challenges that we never resolved > >> involving > >> >> > > including the past Arrow.jl release version git trees in the > >> >> apache/arrow > >> >> > > repo. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Hi Jacob, > >> >> > It seems you are on the new thread discussing a proposal for > changing > >> >> > Rust's development model. Would the proposal [1] address most of > >> these > >> >> > concerns if Julia was set up in the same way? > >> >> > > >> >> > It seems in the short term the stickiest point would be committer > >> access > >> >> > to the new repos, and I suppose the release mechanics still might > be > >> >> > challenging? > >> >> > >> >> I think the package could retain an independent versioning scheme. > The > >> >> additional process would be voting on release candidates. If the > Julia > >> >> folks want to try again and move development to a new, Julia-specific > >> >> apache/* repository and apply the ASF governance to the project, the > >> >> Arrow PMC could probably fast-track making Jacob a committer. In some > >> >> code donations / IP clearance, the contributors for the donated code > >> >> become committers as part of the transaction. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> > Micah > >> >> > > >> >> > [1] > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TyrUP8_UWXqk97a8Hvb1d0UYWigch0HAephIjW7soSI/edit > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:17 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > I went back and read the mailing list discussions from September > >> about > >> >> > > the donation and I would say there was not a clear enough > statement > >> >> > > from us about what the donation and IP clearance meant as far as > the > >> >> > > future of the Julia codebase. This is partly our fault — we have > >> taken > >> >> > > in 9 other code donations over the last 5 years, and in all cases > >> the > >> >> > > developers understood that they were to move their process to the > >> >> > > Arrow repositories and communications channels. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > It did not occur to me at all that the code that you were > putting in > >> >> > > the Arrow repository would get treated like a read-only fork that > >> you > >> >> > > update periodically. If I had realized that, we wouldn't be in > this > >> >> > > situation. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > As a reminder about what Arrow and the ASF are all about: > Community > >> >> > > over Code. We think that building a collaborative, open community > >> that > >> >> > > works and plans together in public, makes decisions based on > >> consensus > >> >> > > with clear meritocratic ("doers decide") governance is the best > way > >> to > >> >> > > build this project. The concerns that you have around the timing > and > >> >> > > frequency of releases for the Julia codebase are in my mind easy > to > >> >> > > resolve, and if you had indicated that having a customized > process > >> for > >> >> > > Julia releases was a condition for your joining the community > >> >> > > wholeheartedly, we would have been happy to help. I think that > the > >> >> > > benefits of common CI/CD infrastructure and opportunities to > build > >> >> > > deeper integrations between the Julia implementation and the > other > >> >> > > implementations (imagine... Julia kernels running in DataFusion?) > >> >> > > would outweigh the sense of "loss of control" from developing > >> within a > >> >> > > larger project. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:16 AM Jacob Quinn < > quinn.jac...@gmail.com > >> > > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Responses inline below: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:46 PM Jorge Cardoso Leitão < > >> >> > > > jorgecarlei...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Hi, > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > you all did not attempt to work in the community for any > >> >> meaningful > >> >> > > > > amount of time and > >> >> > > > > are choosing not to try based on the perception that it will > >> create > >> >> > > > > unacceptable overhead for you > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > It is not self-evident to me that Julia's community was > >> >> sufficiently > >> >> > > > > informed about what they > >> >> > > > > had to give in in terms of process and release management > when > >> >> merging > >> >> > > / > >> >> > > > > donating. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Yes, it was pretty unclear what the process was if we needed > to do > >> >> any > >> >> > > kind > >> >> > > > of patch release. I know that has been sorted out better > recently, > >> >> but > >> >> > > back > >> >> > > > in November, it didn't really seem like an option (i.e. > >> independent > >> >> > > > language patch releases). > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > IMO this is a plausible explanation as to why the donation > was > >> >> made and > >> >> > > > > then later abandoned. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'll just note that the "abandonment" can only be a perception > >> from > >> >> the > >> >> > > > apache/arrow side of things, but as I mentioned above, I also > >> tried > >> >> to > >> >> > > > clearly state in the julia/Arrow/README that the development > >> process > >> >> > > would > >> >> > > > continue with the JuliaData/Arrow.jl repo as the main "dev" > >> branch, > >> >> with > >> >> > > > changes being upstreamed to the apache/arrow repo, which was > >> followed > >> >> > > > through, having an upstream of commits right before the 3.0.0 > >> >> release, > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > > I was planning on doing the same soon for the 4.0.0 release. > That > >> is > >> >> to > >> >> > > > say, the Julia implementation has continued progressing forward > >> quite > >> >> > > > rapidly, IMO, but I can see that perhaps apache/arrow repo > members > >> >> may > >> >> > > have > >> >> > > > viewed it as "abandoned". > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > I do not fully understand why the pain points Jacob mentioned > >> were > >> >> not > >> >> > > > > brought up to the mailing list sooner, though. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > To be honest and frank, I didn't have pain points with the > >> >> development > >> >> > > > process I outlined when the code was donated and as stated in > the > >> >> README. > >> >> > > > That was the process that made the donation possible and I > >> imagined > >> >> would > >> >> > > > work well going forward, and has, until this thread started > and it > >> >> was > >> >> > > > pointed out that this process isn't viable. The pain points > were > >> >> > > discussed > >> >> > > > with the initial code donation, but in my mind were resolved > with > >> the > >> >> > > > development process that was decided upon. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > This made us unable to potentially take corrective measures. > I > >> >> think > >> >> > > that > >> >> > > > > this is why everyone was taken a bit by surprise with this. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Best, > >> >> > > > > Jorge > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:18 PM Wes McKinney < > >> wesmck...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > hi Jacob — sorry to hear that. It's a bummer that you all > did > >> not > >> >> > > > > > attempt to work in the community for any meaningful amount > of > >> >> time > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > > > > are choosing not to try based on the perception that it > will > >> >> create > >> >> > > > > > unacceptable overhead for you. I believe the benefits would > >> >> outweigh > >> >> > > > > > the costs, but I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Can you prepare a pull request to do the requisite > repository > >> >> > > surgery? > >> >> > > > > > I hope the development goes well in the future and look > >> forward > >> >> to > >> >> > > > > > seeing folks from the Julia ecosystem engaged here on > growing > >> the > >> >> > > > > > Arrow ecosystem. > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Thanks, > >> >> > > > > > Wes > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 3:03 PM Jacob Quinn < > >> >> quinn.jac...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Ok, I've had a chance to discuss with a few other Julia > >> >> developers > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > > > > > review various options. I think it's best to drop the > Julia > >> >> code > >> >> > > from > >> >> > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > physical apache/arrow repo. The extra overhead on > >> development, > >> >> > > release > >> >> > > > > > > process, and user issue reporting and PR contributing are > >> too > >> >> much > >> >> > > in > >> >> > > > > > > addition to the technical challenges that we never > resolved > >> >> > > involving > >> >> > > > > > > including the past Arrow.jl release version git trees in > the > >> >> > > > > apache/arrow > >> >> > > > > > > repo. > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > We're still very much committed to working on the Julia > >> >> > > implementation > >> >> > > > > > and > >> >> > > > > > > participating in the broader arrow community. I've > enjoyed > >> >> > > following > >> >> > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > user/dev mailing lists and will continue to do so. We > >> monitor > >> >> > > format > >> >> > > > > > > proposals and try to implement new functionality as > quickly > >> as > >> >> > > > > possible. > >> >> > > > > > We > >> >> > > > > > > got the initial arrow flight proto code generated just > last > >> >> night > >> >> > > in > >> >> > > > > > fact. > >> >> > > > > > > I'd still like to explore official integration with the > >> archery > >> >> > > test > >> >> > > > > > suite > >> >> > > > > > > to solidify the Julia implementation with integration > >> tests; I > >> >> > > think > >> >> > > > > that > >> >> > > > > > > would be very valuable for long-term confidence in the > >> >> > > cross-language > >> >> > > > > > > support of the Julia implementation. > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > We realize one of the main implications will probably be > >> >> dropping > >> >> > > Julia > >> >> > > > > > > from the list of "official implementations". We're > >> encouraged > >> >> by > >> >> > > the > >> >> > > > > many > >> >> > > > > > > users who have already started using the Julia > >> implementation > >> >> and > >> >> > > will > >> >> > > > > > > strive to maintain a high rate of issue responsiveness > and > >> >> feature > >> >> > > > > > > development to maintain project confidence. If there's a > >> >> > > possibility of > >> >> > > > > > > being included somewhere as an "unofficial" or > >> "semi-official" > >> >> > > > > > > implementation, we'd love to still be bundled with the > >> broader > >> >> > > arrow > >> >> > > > > > > project somehow, like, for example, showing how Julia > >> >> integrates > >> >> > > with > >> >> > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > archery test suite, once the work there is done. > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Best, > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > -Jacob > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:10 PM Wes McKinney < > >> >> wesmck...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Also, on the issue that there are no Julia-focused PMC > >> >> members — > >> >> > > note > >> >> > > > > > > > that I helped the JavaScript folks make their own > >> independent > >> >> > > > > releases > >> >> > > > > > > > for quite a while: called the votes (e.g. [1]), helped > get > >> >> > > people to > >> >> > > > > > > > verify and vote on the releases. After a time, it was > >> >> decided to > >> >> > > stop > >> >> > > > > > > > releasing independently because there wasn't enough > >> >> development > >> >> > > > > > > > activity to justify it. > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > [1]: > >> >> > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@arrow.apache.org/msg05971.html > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:54 PM Wes McKinney < > >> >> > > wesmck...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > hi Jacob, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:18 PM Jacob Quinn < > >> >> > > > > quinn.jac...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I can comment as the primary apache arrow liaison > for > >> the > >> >> > > > > Arrow.jl > >> >> > > > > > > > > > repository and original code donator. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I apologize for the "surprise", but I commented a > few > >> >> times > >> >> > > in > >> >> > > > > > various > >> >> > > > > > > > > > places and put a snippet in the README > >> >> > > > > > > > > > < > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/master/julia/Arrow#difference-between-this-code-and-the-juliadataarrowjl-repository > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > about > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the approach I wanted to take w/ the Julia > >> >> implementation in > >> >> > > > > terms > >> >> > > > > > of > >> >> > > > > > > > > > keeping the JuliaData/Arrow.jl repository as a "dev > >> >> branch" > >> >> > > of > >> >> > > > > > sorts > >> >> > > > > > > > of the > >> >> > > > > > > > > > apache/arrow code, upstreaming changes > periodically. > >> >> There's > >> >> > > > > even a > >> >> > > > > > > > script > >> >> > > > > > > > > > < > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> > https://github.com/JuliaData/Arrow.jl/blob/main/scripts/update_apache_arrow_code.jl > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I wrote to mostly automate this upstreaming. I > realize > >> >> now > >> >> > > that I > >> >> > > > > > > > didn't > >> >> > > > > > > > > > consider the "Arrow PMC" position on this kind of > >> setup > >> >> or > >> >> > > seek > >> >> > > > > to > >> >> > > > > > > > affirm > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that it would be ok to approach things like this. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The reality is that Julia users are very engrained > to > >> >> expect > >> >> > > > > Julia > >> >> > > > > > > > packages > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to live in a single stand-alone github repo, where > >> issues > >> >> > > can be > >> >> > > > > > > > opened, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and pull requests are welcome. It was hard and > still > >> is > >> >> hard > >> >> > > to > >> >> > > > > > imagine > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "turning that off", since I believe we would lose a > >> lot > >> >> of > >> >> > > > > > valuable bug > >> >> > > > > > > > > > reports and first-time contributions. This isn't > >> >> necessarily > >> >> > > any > >> >> > > > > > fault > >> >> > > > > > > > of > >> >> > > > > > > > > > how the bug report/contribution process is handled > for > >> >> the > >> >> > > arrow > >> >> > > > > > > > project > >> >> > > > > > > > > > overall, though I'm also aware that there's a > desire > >> to > >> >> make > >> >> > > it > >> >> > > > > > easier > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > < > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> > https://lists.apache.org/x/thread.html/r8817dfba08ef8daa210956db69d513fd27b7a751d28fb8f27e39cc7e@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it currently requires more and different effort > than > >> >> Julia > >> >> > > users > >> >> > > > > > are > >> >> > > > > > > > used > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to. I think it's more from how open, welcoming, and > >> how > >> >> > > strong > >> >> > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > > culture > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is in Julia around encouraging community > contributions > >> >> and > >> >> > > the > >> >> > > > > > tight > >> >> > > > > > > > > > integration with github and its open-source project > >> >> > > management > >> >> > > > > > tools. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Well, we are on track to having 1000 different people > >> >> > > contribute to > >> >> > > > > > > > > the project and have over 12,000 issues, so I don't > >> think > >> >> > > there is > >> >> > > > > > > > > evidence that we are failing to attract new > >> contributors or > >> >> > > that > >> >> > > > > > > > > feature requests / bugs aren't being reported. The > way > >> >> that we > >> >> > > work > >> >> > > > > > is > >> >> > > > > > > > > _different_, so adapting to the Apache process will > >> require > >> >> > > change. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Additionally, I was and still am concerned about > the > >> >> overall > >> >> > > > > > release > >> >> > > > > > > > > > process of the apache/arrow project. I know there > have > >> >> been > >> >> > > > > efforts > >> >> > > > > > > > there > >> >> > > > > > > > > > as well to make it easier for individual languages > to > >> >> > > release on > >> >> > > > > > their > >> >> > > > > > > > own > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cadence, but just anecdotally, the > JuliaData/Arrow.jl > >> has > >> >> > > > > > > > had/needed/wanted > >> >> > > > > > > > > > 10 patch and minor releases since the original code > >> >> donation, > >> >> > > > > > whereas > >> >> > > > > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > > > > apache/arrow project has had one (3.0.0). This > leads > >> to > >> >> some > >> >> > > of > >> >> > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > > > > concerns I have with restricting development to > just > >> the > >> >> > > > > > apache/arrow > >> >> > > > > > > > > > repository: how exactly does the release process > work > >> for > >> >> > > > > > individual > >> >> > > > > > > > > > languages who may desire independent releases apart > >> from > >> >> the > >> >> > > > > > quarterly > >> >> > > > > > > > > > overall project releases? I think from the Rust > >> thread I > >> >> > > remember > >> >> > > > > > that > >> >> > > > > > > > you > >> >> > > > > > > > > > just need a group of language contributors to all > >> agree, > >> >> but > >> >> > > what > >> >> > > > > > if > >> >> > > > > > > > I'm > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the only "active" Julia contributor? It's also > unclear > >> >> what > >> >> > > the > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expectations are for actual development: with the > >> >> original > >> >> > > code > >> >> > > > > > > > donation > >> >> > > > > > > > > > PRs, I know Neal "reviewed" the PRs, but perhaps > >> missed > >> >> the > >> >> > > > > details > >> >> > > > > > > > around > >> >> > > > > > > > > > how I proposed development continue going forward. > Is > >> it > >> >> > > required > >> >> > > > > > to > >> >> > > > > > > > have a > >> >> > > > > > > > > > certain number of reviews before merging? On the > Julia > >> >> side, > >> >> > > I > >> >> > > > > can > >> >> > > > > > try > >> >> > > > > > > > to > >> >> > > > > > > > > > encourage/push for those who have contributed to > the > >> >> > > > > > JuliaData/Arrow.jl > >> >> > > > > > > > > > repository to help review PRs to apache/arrow, but > I > >> also > >> >> > > can't > >> >> > > > > > > > guarantee > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we would always have someone to review. It just > feels > >> >> pretty > >> >> > > > > > awkward > >> >> > > > > > > > if I > >> >> > > > > > > > > > keep needing to ping non-Julia people to "review" a > >> PR to > >> >> > > merge > >> >> > > > > it. > >> >> > > > > > > > Perhaps > >> >> > > > > > > > > > this is just a problem of the overall Julia > >> >> implementation > >> >> > > > > > "smallness" > >> >> > > > > > > > in > >> >> > > > > > > > > > terms of contributors, but I'm not sure on the best > >> >> answer > >> >> > > here. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Several things here: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > * If you want to do separate Julia releases, you are > >> free > >> >> to do > >> >> > > > > that, > >> >> > > > > > > > > but you have to follow the process (voting on the > >> mailing > >> >> list, > >> >> > > > > > > > > publishing GPG-signed source artifacts) > >> >> > > > > > > > > * If you had been working "in the community" since > >> >> November, > >> >> > > you > >> >> > > > > > would > >> >> > > > > > > > > probably already be a committer, so there is a > >> >> bootstrapping > >> >> > > here > >> >> > > > > > that > >> >> > > > > > > > > has failed to take place. In the meantime, we are > more > >> than > >> >> > > happy > >> >> > > > > to > >> >> > > > > > > > > help you "earn your wings" (as a committer) as > quickly > >> as > >> >> > > possible. > >> >> > > > > > > > > But from my perspective, I see a code donation and > two > >> >> other > >> >> > > > > commits, > >> >> > > > > > > > > which isn't enough to make a case for committership. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > So in short, I'm not sure on the best path > forward. I > >> >> think > >> >> > > > > > strictly > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restricting development to the apache/arrow > physical > >> >> > > repository > >> >> > > > > > would > >> >> > > > > > > > > > actively hurt the progress of the Julia > >> implementation, > >> >> > > whereas > >> >> > > > > it > >> >> > > > > > > > *has* > >> >> > > > > > > > > > been progressing with increasing momentum since > first > >> >> > > released. > >> >> > > > > > There > >> >> > > > > > > > are > >> >> > > > > > > > > > posts on the Julia discourse forum, in the Julia > slack > >> >> and > >> >> > > zulip > >> >> > > > > > > > > > communities, and quite a few issues/PRs being > opened > >> at > >> >> the > >> >> > > > > > > > > > JuliaData/Arrow.jl repository. There have been > several > >> >> calls > >> >> > > for > >> >> > > > > > arrow > >> >> > > > > > > > > > flight support, with a member from Julia Computing > >> >> actually > >> >> > > close > >> >> > > > > > to > >> >> > > > > > > > > > releasing a gRPC client > >> >> > > > > > > > > > <https://github.com/JuliaComputing/gRPCClient.jl> > >> >> > > specifically > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to help with flight support. But in terms of actual > >> >> > > committers, > >> >> > > > > > it's > >> >> > > > > > > > been > >> >> > > > > > > > > > primarily just myself, with a few minor > contributions > >> by > >> >> > > others. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I guess the big question that comes to mind is what > >> are > >> >> the > >> >> > > hard > >> >> > > > > > > > > > requirements to be considered an "official > >> >> implementation"? > >> >> > > Does > >> >> > > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > > code > >> >> > > > > > > > > > *have* to live in the same physical repo? Or if it > >> >> passed the > >> >> > > > > > series of > >> >> > > > > > > > > > archery integration tests, would that be enough? I > >> >> apologize > >> >> > > for > >> >> > > > > my > >> >> > > > > > > > > > naivete/inexperience on all things "apache", but I > >> >> imagine > >> >> > > that's > >> >> > > > > > a big > >> >> > > > > > > > > > part of it: having official development/releases > >> through > >> >> the > >> >> > > > > > > > apache/arrow > >> >> > > > > > > > > > community, though again I'm not exactly sure on the > >> >> formal > >> >> > > > > > processes > >> >> > > > > > > > here? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I would like to keep Julia as an official > >> implementation, > >> >> > > but I'm > >> >> > > > > > also > >> >> > > > > > > > > > mostly carrying the maintainership alone at the > moment > >> >> and > >> >> > > want > >> >> > > > > to > >> >> > > > > > be > >> >> > > > > > > > > > realistic with the future of the project. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > The critical matter is whether the > >> development/maintenance > >> >> > > work is > >> >> > > > > > > > > conducted by the "Arrow community" in accordance with > >> the > >> >> > > Apache > >> >> > > > > Way, > >> >> > > > > > > > > which is to say individuals collaborating with each > >> other > >> >> on > >> >> > > Apache > >> >> > > > > > > > > channels (for communication and development) and > >> avoiding > >> >> the > >> >> > > bad > >> >> > > > > > > > > patterns you see sometimes in other communities (e.g. > >> >> > > inconsistent > >> >> > > > > > > > > openness). > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > It's fine — really, no pressure — if you want to be > >> >> > > independent and > >> >> > > > > > do > >> >> > > > > > > > > things your own way, you just have to be clear that > you > >> are > >> >> > > > > > > > > independent and not operating as part of the Apache > >> Arrow > >> >> > > > > community. > >> >> > > > > > > > > You can't have it both ways, though. No hard feelings > >> >> whatever > >> >> > > you > >> >> > > > > > > > > decide, but the current "dump code over the wall > >> >> occasionally" > >> >> > > > > > > > > approach but work on independent channels is not > >> >> compatible. > >> >> > > > > Building > >> >> > > > > > > > > healthy open source communities is hard, but this way > >> has > >> >> been > >> >> > > > > shown > >> >> > > > > > > > > to work well, which is why I've spent the last 6 > years > >> >> working > >> >> > > hard > >> >> > > > > > to > >> >> > > > > > > > > bring people together to build this project and > >> ecosystem! > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > If you want to maintain a test harness here to > verify an > >> >> > > > > independent > >> >> > > > > > > > > Julia implementation, that's fine, too. I'm > disappointed > >> >> that > >> >> > > > > things > >> >> > > > > > > > > failed to bootstrap after the code donation, so I > want > >> to > >> >> see > >> >> > > if we > >> >> > > > > > > > > can course correct quickly or if not decide to go our > >> >> separate > >> >> > > > > ways. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> >> > > > > > > > > Wes > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm open to discussion and ideas on the best way > >> forward. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > -Jacob > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:03 PM Wes McKinney < > >> >> > > > > wesmck...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > hi folks, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > I was very surprised today to learn that the > Julia > >> >> Arrow > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > implementation has continued operating more or > less > >> >> like an > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > independent open source project since the code > >> donation > >> >> > > last > >> >> > > > > > > > November: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/JuliaData/Arrow.jl/commits/main > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > There may have been a misunderstanding about what > >> was > >> >> > > expected > >> >> > > > > to > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > occur after the code donation, but it's > problematic > >> >> for a > >> >> > > bunch > >> >> > > > > > of > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasons (IP lineage / governance / community > >> >> development) > >> >> > > to > >> >> > > > > have > >> >> > > > > > > > work > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > happening on the implementation "outside the > >> >> community". > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > In any case, what is done is done, so the Arrow > >> PMC's > >> >> > > position > >> >> > > > > on > >> >> > > > > > > > this > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > would be roughly to regard the work as a hard > fork > >> of > >> >> > > what's in > >> >> > > > > > > > Apache > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Arrow, which given its development activity is > more > >> or > >> >> less > >> >> > > > > > inactive > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1]. (I had actually thought the project was > simply > >> >> > > inactive > >> >> > > > > > after > >> >> > > > > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > code donation) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > The critical question now is, is there interest > from > >> >> Julia > >> >> > > > > > developers > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in working "in the community", which is to say: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > * Having development discussions on ASF channels > >> >> (mailing > >> >> > > list, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > GitHub, JIRA), planning and communicating in the > >> open > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > * Doing all development in ASF GitHub > repositories > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > The answer to the question may be "no" (which is > >> okay), > >> >> > > but if > >> >> > > > > > that's > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the case, I don't think we should be giving the > >> >> impression > >> >> > > that > >> >> > > > > > we > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > have an official Julia implementation that is > >> >> developed and > >> >> > > > > > > > maintained > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > by the community (and so my argument would be > >> >> > > unfortunately to > >> >> > > > > > drop > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the donated code from the project). > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is "yes", there needs to be a hard > >> >> > > commitment to > >> >> > > > > > move > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > development to Apache channels and not look > back. We > >> >> would > >> >> > > also > >> >> > > > > > need > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > to figure out what to do to document and > synchronize > >> >> the > >> >> > > new IP > >> >> > > > > > > > that's > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > been created since the code donation. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Wes > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1]: > >> >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/commits/master/julia/Arrow > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >
