Ah, thanks for the clarification Neal! Jacob/Matt: I put up https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/pull/124 to describe the convention but I wonder if we should partition components more granularly than we have so far.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022, at 12:57, Neal Richardson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:44 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I like this idea. I would also like to set up some sort of automated ABI >> checker as well (the options I found were GPL/LGPL so I need to figure out >> how to proceed). >> > > You should be able to use GPL software in CI, that's no problem. You can > even depend on GPL software as long as it is "optional": > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional But this would not even > count as that since the ABI checker wouldn't be required to use the > software. > > Neal > > >> >> I can put up a PR later that formalizes these guidelines in >> CONTRIBUTING.md. It looks like there's a pre-commit hook for this sort of >> thing too, which'll let us enforce it in CI! >> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022, at 10:18, Matthew Topol wrote: >> > Automated semver would be ideal if we can do it..... >> > >> > There's quite a lot of utilities that exist which would automatically >> > handle the versioning if we're using conventional commits. >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 12 2022 at 02:26:15 PM +0200, Jacob Wujciak >> > <ja...@voltrondata.com.INVALID> wrote: >> >> + 1 to independent, semver versioning for adbc. >> >> I would propose we use conventional commit style [1] commit messages >> >> for >> >> the pr commits (I assume squash + merge) so we can automate the >> >> versioning|double check manual versioning. >> >> >> >> [1]: <https://www.conventionalcommits.org/> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 6:05 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org >> >> <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Thanks all, I've updated the header with the proposed versioning >> >>> scheme. >> >>> >> >>> At this point I believe the core definitions are ready. (Note that >> >>> I'm >> >>> explicitly punting on [1][2][3] here.) Absent further comments, I'd >> >>> like to >> >>> do the following: >> >>> >> >>> - Start a vote on mirroring adbc.h to arrow/format, as well adding >> >>> docs/source/format/ADBC.rst that describes the header, the Java >> >>> interface, >> >>> the Go interface, and the versioning scheme (I will put up a PR >> >>> beforehand) >> >>> - Begin work on CI/packaging, with a release hopefully coinciding >> >>> with >> >>> Arrow 10.0.0 >> >>> - Begin work on changes to the main repository, also hopefully in >> >>> time for >> >>> 10.0.0 (moving the Flight SQL driver to be part of apache/arrow; >> >>> exposing >> >>> it in PyArrow; possibly also exposing Acero via ADBC) >> >>> >> >>> [1]: <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/46> >> >>> [2]: <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/55> >> >>> [3]: <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/59> >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Sep 3, 2022, at 18:36, Matthew Topol wrote: >> >>> > +1 from me on the strategy proposed by Kou. >> >>> > >> >>> > That would be my preference also. I agree it is preferable to be >> >>> versioned >> >>> > independently. >> >>> > >> >>> > --Matt >> >>> > >> >>> > On Sat, Sep 3, 2022, 6:24 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com >> >>> <mailto:k...@clear-code.com>> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >> Hi, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Do we have a preference for versioning strategy? Should we >> >>> >> > proceed in lockstep with the Arrow C++ library et. al. and >> >>> >> > release "ADBC 1.0.0" (the API standard) with "drivers >> >>> >> > version 10.0.0", or use an independent versioning scheme? >> >>> >> > (For example, release API standard and components at >> >>> >> > "1.0.0". Then further releases of components that do not >> >>> >> > change the spec would be "1.1", "1.2", ...; if/when we >> >>> >> > change the spec, start over with "2.0", "2.1", ...) >> >>> >> >> >>> >> I like an independent versioning schema. I assume that ADBC >> >>> >> doesn't need backward incompatible changes frequently. How >> >>> >> about incrementing major version only when ADBC needs >> >>> >> any backward incompatible changes? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> e.g.: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> 1. Release ADBC (the API standard) 1.0.0 >> >>> >> 2. Release adbc_driver_manager 1.0.0 >> >>> >> 3. Release adbc_driver_postgres 1.0.0 >> >>> >> 4. Add a new feature to adbc_driver_postgres without >> >>> >> any backward incompatible changes >> >>> >> 5. Release adbc_driver_postgres 1.1.0 >> >>> >> 6. Fix a bug in adbc_driver_manager without >> >>> >> any backward incompatible changes >> >>> >> 7. Release adbc_driver_manager 1.0.1 >> >>> >> 8. Add a backward incompatible change to adbc_driver_manager >> >>> >> 9. Release adbc_driver_manager 2.0.0 >> >>> >> 10. Add a new feature to ADBC without any >> >>> >> backward incompatible changes >> >>> >> 11. Release ADBC (the API standard) 1.1.0 >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Thanks, >> >>> >> -- >> >>> >> kou >> >>> >> >> >>> >> In <7b20d730-b85e-4818-b99e-3335c40c2...@www.fastmail.com >> >>> <mailto:7b20d730-b85e-4818-b99e-3335c40c2...@www.fastmail.com>> >> >>> >> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Thu, 01 Sep >> >>> 2022 >> >>> >> 16:36:43 -0400, >> >>> >> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Following up here with some specific questions: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Matt Topol added some Go definitions [1] (thanks!) I'd assume >> >>> we want >> >>> to >> >>> >> vote on those as well? >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > How should the process work for Java/Go? For C/C++, I assume >> >>> we'd >> >>> treat >> >>> >> it like the C Data Interface and copy adbc.h to format/ after a >> >>> vote, >> >>> and >> >>> >> then vote on releases of components. Or do we really only >> >>> consider the C >> >>> >> header as the 'format', with the others being language-specific >> >>> affordances? >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > What about for Java and for Go? We could vote on and tag a >> >>> release for >> >>> >> Go, and add a documentation page that links to the Java/Go >> >>> definitions >> >>> at a >> >>> >> specific revision (as the equivalent 'format' definition for >> >>> Java/Go)? >> >>> Or >> >>> >> would we vendor the entire Java module/Go package as the >> >>> 'format'? >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Do we have a preference for versioning strategy? Should we >> >>> proceed in >> >>> >> lockstep with the Arrow C++ library et. al. and release "ADBC >> >>> 1.0.0" >> >>> (the >> >>> >> API standard) with "drivers version 10.0.0", or use an >> >>> independent >> >>> >> versioning scheme? (For example, release API standard and >> >>> components at >> >>> >> "1.0.0". Then further releases of components that do not change >> >>> the spec >> >>> >> would be "1.1", "1.2", ...; if/when we change the spec, start >> >>> over with >> >>> >> "2.0", "2.1", ...) >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > [1]: >> >>> <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/blob/main/go/adbc/adbc.go> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > -David >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2022, at 10:56, Sutou Kouhei wrote: >> >>> >> >> Hi, >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> OK. I'll send pull requests for GLib and Ruby soon. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> I'm curious if you have a particular use case in mind. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> I don't have any production-ready use case yet but I want to >> >>> >> >> implement an Active Record adapter for ADBC. Active Record >> >>> >> >> is the O/R mapper for Ruby on Rails. Implementing Web >> >>> >> >> application by Ruby on Rails is one of major Ruby use >> >>> >> >> cases. So providing Active Record interface for ADBC will >> >>> >> >> increase Apache Arrow users in Ruby community. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> NOTE: Generally, Ruby on Rails users don't process large >> >>> >> >> data but they sometimes need to process large (medium?) data >> >>> >> >> in a batch process. Active Record adapter for ADBC may be >> >>> >> >> useful for such use case. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> There's a little bit more API cleanup to do [1]. If you >> >>> >> >>> have comments on that or anything else, I'd appreciate >> >>> >> >>> them. Otherwise, pull requests would also be appreciated. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> OK. I'll open issues/pull requests when I find >> >>> >> >> something. For now, I think that "MODULE" type library >> >>> >> >> instead of "SHARED" type library in CMake terminology >> >>> >> >> [cmake] is better for driver modules. (I'll open an issue >> >>> >> >> for this later.) >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> [cmake]: >> >>> <https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/add_library.html> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >> >> -- >> >>> >> >> kou >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> In <e6380315-94aa-4dd1-8685-268edd597...@www.fastmail.com >> >>> <mailto:e6380315-94aa-4dd1-8685-268edd597...@www.fastmail.com>> >> >>> >> >> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Sat, 27 >> >>> Aug 2022 >> >>> >> >> 15:28:56 -0400, >> >>> >> >> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org >> >>> <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> I would be very happy to see GLib/Ruby bindings! I'm curious >> >>> if you >> >>> >> have a particular use case in mind. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> There's a little bit more API cleanup to do [1]. If you have >> >>> comments >> >>> >> on that or anything else, I'd appreciate them. Otherwise, pull >> >>> requests >> >>> >> would also be appreciated. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> [1]: <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/79> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022, at 21:53, Sutou Kouhei wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> Thanks for sharing the current status! >> >>> >> >>>> I understand. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> BTW, can I add GLib/Ruby bindings to apache/arrow-adbc >> >>> >> >>>> before we release the first version? (I want to use ADBC >> >>> >> >>>> from Ruby.) Or should I wait for the first release? If I can >> >>> >> >>>> work on it now, I'll open pull requests for it. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>> >> >>>> -- >> >>> >> >>>> kou >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> In <8703efd9-51bd-4f91-b550-73830667d...@www.fastmail.com >> >>> <mailto:8703efd9-51bd-4f91-b550-73830667d...@www.fastmail.com>> >> >>> >> >>>> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Fri, >> >>> 26 Aug >> >>> 2022 >> >>> >> >>>> 11:03:26 -0400, >> >>> >> >>>> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org >> >>> <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> Thank you Kou! >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> At least initially, I don't think I'll be able to complete >> >>> the >> >>> >> Dataset integration in time. So 10.0.0 probably won't ship with >> >>> a hard >> >>> >> dependency. That said I am hoping to have PyArrow take an >> >>> optional >> >>> >> dependency (so Flight SQL can finally be available from Python). >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022, at 01:01, Sutou Kouhei wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> As a maintainer of Linux packages, I want >> >>> apache/arrow-adbc >> >>> >> >>>>>> to be released before apache/arrow is released so that >> >>> >> >>>>>> apache/arrow's .deb/.rpm can depend on apache/arrow-adbc's >> >>> >> >>>>>> .deb/.rpm. >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> (If Apache Arrow Dataset uses apache/arrow-adbc, >> >>> >> >>>>>> apache/arrow's .deb/.rpm needs to depend on >> >>> >> >>>>>> apache/arrow-adbc's .deb/.rpm.) >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> We can add .deb/.rpm related files >> >>> >> >>>>>> (dev/tasks/linux-packages/ in apache/arrow) to >> >>> >> >>>>>> apache/arrow-adbc to build .deb/.rpm for >> >>> apache/arrow-adbc. >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> FYI: I did it for datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c: >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> * >> >>> >> >> >>> <https://github.com/datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c/tree/main/package> >> >>> >> >>>>>> * >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> < >> https://github.com/datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c/blob/main/.github/workflows/package.yaml >> > >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> I can work on it in apache/arrow-adbc. >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> Thanks, >> >>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>> >> >>>>>> kou >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> In <5cbf2923-4fb4-4c5e-b11d-007209fdd...@www.fastmail.com >> >>> <mailto:5cbf2923-4fb4-4c5e-b11d-007209fdd...@www.fastmail.com>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Thu, >> >>> 25 Aug >> >>> >> 2022 >> >>> >> >>>>>> 11:51:08 -0400, >> >>> >> >>>>>> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org >> >>> <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> Fair enough, thank you. I'll try to expand a bit. (Sorry >> >>> for the >> >>> >> wall of text that follows…) >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> These are the components: >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> - Core adbc.h header >> >>> >> >>>>>>> - Driver manager for C/C++ >> >>> >> >>>>>>> - Flight SQL-based driver >> >>> >> >>>>>>> - Postgres-based driver (WIP) >> >>> >> >>>>>>> - SQLite-based driver (more of a testbed for me than an >> >>> actual >> >>> >> component - I don't think we'd actually distribute this) >> >>> >> >>>>>>> - Java core interfaces >> >>> >> >>>>>>> - Java driver manager >> >>> >> >>>>>>> - Java JDBC-based driver >> >>> >> >>>>>>> - Java Flight SQL-based driver >> >>> >> >>>>>>> - Python driver manager >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> I think: adbc.h gets mirrored into the Arrow repo. The >> >>> Flight >> >>> SQL >> >>> >> drivers get moved to the main Arrow repo and distributed as part >> >>> of the >> >>> >> regular Arrow releases. >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> For the rest of the components: they could be packaged >> >>> >> individually, but versioned and released together. Also, each >> >>> C/C++ >> >>> driver >> >>> >> probably needs a corresponding Python package so Python users do >> >>> not >> >>> have >> >>> >> to futz with shared library configurations. (See [1].) So for >> >>> instance, >> >>> >> installing PyArrow would also give you the Flight SQL driver, >> >>> and `pip >> >>> >> install adbc_postgres` would get you the Postgres-based driver. >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> That would mean setting up separate CI, release, etc. >> >>> (and >> >>> >> eventually linking Crossbow & Conbench as well?). That does mean >> >>> >> duplication of effort, but the trade off is avoiding bloating >> >>> the main >> >>> >> release process even further. However, I'd like to hear from >> >>> those >> >>> closer >> >>> >> to the release process on this subject - if it would make >> >>> people's lives >> >>> >> easier, we could merge everything into one repo/process. >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> Integrations would be distributed as part of their >> >>> respective >> >>> >> packages (e.g. Arrow Dataset would optionally link to the driver >> >>> manager). >> >>> >> So the "part of Arrow 10.0.0" aspect means having a stable >> >>> interface for >> >>> >> adbc.h, and getting the Flight SQL drivers into the main repo. >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> [1]: <https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/53> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022, at 11:34, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 14:09:44 -0400 >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org >> >>> <mailto:lidav...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> Since it's been a while, I'd like to give an update. >> >>> There are >> >>> >> also a few questions I have around distribution. >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> Currently: >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> - Supported in C, Java, and Python. >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> - For C/Python, there are basic drivers wrapping >> >>> Flight SQL >> >>> and >> >>> >> SQLite, with a draft of a libpq (Postgres) driver (using >> >>> nanoarrow). >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> - For Java, there are drivers wrapping JDBC and Flight >> >>> SQL. >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> - For Python, there's low-level bindings to the C API, >> >>> and the >> >>> >> DBAPI interface on top of that (+a few extension methods >> >>> resembling >> >>> >> DuckDB/Turbodbc). >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> There's drafts of integration with Ibis [1], DBI (R), >> >>> and >> >>> >> DuckDB. (I'd like to thank Hannes and Kirill for their comments, >> >>> as >> >>> well as >> >>> >> Antoine, Dewey, and Matt here.) >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to have this as part of 10.0.0 in some >> >>> fashion. >> >>> >> However, I'm not sure how we would like to handle packaging and >> >>> >> distribution. In particular, there are several sub-components >> >>> for each >> >>> >> language (the driver manager + the drivers), increasing the >> >>> work. Any >> >>> >> thoughts here? >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Sorry, forgot to answer here. But I think your question >> >>> is too >> >>> >> broadly >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> formulated. It probably deserves a case-by-case >> >>> discussion, >> >>> IMHO. >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm also wondering how we want to handle this in terms >> >>> of >> >>> >> specification - I assume we'd consider the core header file/Java >> >>> interfaces >> >>> >> a spec like the C Data Interface/Flight RPC, and vote on >> >>> them/mirror >> >>> them >> >>> >> into the format/ directory? >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> That sounds like the right way to me indeed. >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Regards >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Antoine. >> >>> >> >> >>> >>
