+1 (non-binding)! Reading the discussion on that PR is illuminating as to how difficult this can be...thank you!
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 3:54 PM Benjamin Kietzman <bengil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1, thanks for all your work on this! > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:09 AM Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That makes 1 binding and one non-binding +1, as 3 binding votes are > > necessary I'm sending this to hopefully request more eyes here and get some > > more votes. > > > > Thanks all! > > > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:38 AM Felipe Oliveira Carvalho < > > felipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 for me. > > > > > > The C structs are clean and leave good room for extension. > > > > > > -- > > > Felipe > > > > > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 12:04 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 for me. > > > > > > > > (Heads up: on the PR, there was some discussion since the last email > > and > > > > the meaning of 'experimental' was clarified.) > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023, at 16:56, Matt Topol wrote: > > > > > To clarify: > > > > > > > > > >> Depends on what we're voting on? > > > > > > > > > > Voting on adopting the spec and adding it (while still leaving it > > > labeled > > > > > as "experimental" in the docs) to the format. > > > > > > > > > > --Matt > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:29 PM Matthew Topol > > > > <m...@voltrondata.com.invalid> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> @Antoine: I've updated the PR with a prose description of the C > > Device > > > > Data > > > > >> interface. Sorry for the lack of that in the first place. > > > > >> > > > > >> --Matt > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 10:34 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Also, I forgot to say, but thanks a lot for doing this! We can > > hope > > > > this > > > > >> > will drastically improve interoperability between non-CPU data > > > > >> > frameworks and libraries. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Regards > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Antoine. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Le 23/05/2023 à 16:32, Antoine Pitrou a écrit : > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Depends on what we're voting on? > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > The C declarations seem fine to me (I'm a bit lukewarm on the > > > > reserved > > > > >> > > bits, but I understand the motivation), however I've posted > > > > comments as > > > > >> > > to how to document the interface. The current PR entirely lacks > > a > > > > prose > > > > >> > > description of the C Device Data Interface. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Regards > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Antoine. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Le 22/05/2023 à 18:02, Matt Topol a écrit : > > > > >> > >> Hello, > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Now that there's a rough consensus and a toy example POC[1], I > > > > would > > > > >> > like > > > > >> > >> to propose an official enhancement to the Arrow C-Data API > > > > >> > specification as > > > > >> > >> described in the PR[2]. The new > > > > >> ArrowDeviceArray/ArrowDeviceArrayStream > > > > >> > >> structs would be considered "experimental" and the > > documentation > > > > would > > > > >> > >> label them as such for the time being. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Please comment, ask questions, and look at the PR and toy > > example > > > > POC > > > > >> as > > > > >> > >> needed. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> [ ] +1 Add this to the C-Data API > > > > >> > >> [ ] +0 > > > > >> > >> [ ] -1 Do not add this to the C-Data API because... > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Thank you very much everyone! > > > > >> > >> -- Matt > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> [1]: https://github.com/zeroshade/arrow-non-cpu > > > > >> > >> [2]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/34972 > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
