Thank you, that sounds great! On first glance some seem to be rather old and probably don't apply anymore.
> BTW, do we really need to make a full copy of them to have a mirror in the Arrow GitHub issues? I am not sure I understand what you mean? A full copy of the open/closed/all issues? I'd say only the (remaining) open issues would be fine. For reference this is what an imported issue looks like: https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/30543 Am Sa., 11. Mai 2024 um 04:09 Uhr schrieb Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com>: > I can initiate the vote. But before the vote, I think we need to revisit > the states of all unresolved tickets and close some as needed. > > BTW, do we really need to make a full copy of them to have a mirror > in the Arrow GitHub issues? > > I'd like to seek a consensus here before sending the vote. > > Best, > Gang > > On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 8:46 AM Jacob Wujciak <assignu...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hello Everyone! > > > > It seems there is general agreement on this topic, it would be great if a > > committer/PMC could start a (lazy consensus) procedural vote. > > > > I will inquire how to handle the parquet-cpp component in jira (ideally > > disabling it, not removing). > > There are currently only ~70 open tickets for parquet-cpp, with the > change > > in repo it is probably easier to just move open tickets but I'll leave > that > > to Rok who managed the transition of Arrows 20k+ tickets too :D > > > > Thanks, > > Jacob > > > > Arrow committer > > > > On 2024/04/25 05:31:18 Gang Wu wrote: > > > I know we have some non-Java committers and PMCs. But after the > > parquet-cpp > > > donation, it seems that no one worked on Parquet from arrow (cpp, rust, > > go, > > > etc.) > > > and other projects are promoted as a Parquet committer. It would be > > > inconvenient > > > for non-Java Parquet developers to work with apache/parquet-format and > > > apache/parquet-testing repositories. Furthermore, votes from these > > > developers > > > are not binding for a format change in the ML. > > > > > > Best, > > > Gang > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:42 PM Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Should we consider > > > > > Parquet developers from other projects than parquet-mr as Parquet > > > > commuters? > > > > > > > > We are doing this (speaking as a Parquet PMC who didn't work on > > > > parquet-mr, but parquet-cpp). > > > > > > > > Best > > > > Uwe > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, at 2:38 PM, Gang Wu wrote: > > > > > +1 for moving parquet-cpp issues from Apache Jira to Arrow's GitHub > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > Besides, I want to echo Will's question in the thread. Should we > > consider > > > > > Parquet developers from other projects than parquet-mr as Parquet > > > > commiters? > > > > > Currently apache/parquet-format and apache/parquet-testing > > repositories > > > > are > > > > > solely governed by Apache Parquet PMC. It would be better for the > > entire > > > > > Parquet community if developers with sufficient contributions to > open > > > > source > > > > > Parquet projects (including but not limited to parquet-cpp, > arrow-rs, > > > > cudf, > > > > > etc.) > > > > > can be considered as Parquet committer and PMC. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Gang > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 7:04 PM Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I would be very supportive of this move. The Parquet C++ > > development has > > > > >> been under the umbrella of the Arrow repository for more than > > five(six?) > > > > >> years now. Thus, the issues should also be aligned with the Arrow > > > > project. > > > > >> > > > > >> Uwe > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, at 8:27 PM, Rok Mihevc wrote: > > > > >> > Bumping this thread again to see if there is will to call for a > > vote > > > > and > > > > >> > move parquet-cpp issues from Apache Jira to Arrow's GitHub issue > > as > > > > was > > > > >> > done for Arrow. > > > > >> > I'm willing to do the move as I already did it for Arrow. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Rok > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 4:53 AM Micah Kornfield < > > > > emkornfi...@apache.org> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Bumping this thread again to see in any Parquet PMC members can > > chime > > > > >> >> in/maybe start a formal vote to move governance of Parquet-CPP > > under > > > > the > > > > >> >> umbrella. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> -Micah > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> On 2023/02/02 10:34:25 Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Will, > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Le 01/02/2023 à 20:27, Will Jones a écrit : > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > First, it's not obvious where issues are supposed to be > > open: In > > > > >> >> Parquet > > > > >> >> > > Jira or Arrow GitHub issues. Looking back at some of the > > original > > > > >> >> > > discussion, it looks like the intention was > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > * use PARQUET-XXX for issues relating to Parquet core > > > > >> >> > >> * use ARROW-XXX for issues relation to Arrow's consumption > > of > > > > >> Parquet > > > > >> >> > >> core (e.g. changes that are in parquet/arrow right now) > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > > The README for the old parquet-cpp repo [3] states instead > in > > > > it's > > > > >> >> > > migration note: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > JIRA issues should continue to be opened in the PARQUET > > JIRA > > > > >> project. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > Either way, it doesn't seem like this process is obvious to > > > > people. > > > > >> >> Perhaps > > > > >> >> > > we could clarify this and add notices to Arrow's GitHub > > issues > > > > >> >> template? > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > I agree we should clarify this. I have no personal > preference, > > but > > > > I > > > > >> >> will note > > > > >> >> > that Github issues decrease friction as having a GH account > is > > > > already > > > > >> >> necessary > > > > >> >> > for submitting PRs. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Second, committer status is a little unclear. I am a > > committer on > > > > >> >> Arrow, > > > > >> >> > > but not on Parquet right now. Does that mean I should only > > merge > > > > >> >> Parquet > > > > >> >> > > C++ PRs for code changes in parquet/arrow? Or that I > > shouldn't > > > > merge > > > > >> >> > > Parquet changes at all? > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Since Parquet C++ is part of Arrow C++, you are allowed to > > merge > > > > >> Parquet > > > > >> >> C++ > > > > >> >> > changes. As always you should ensure you have sufficient > > > > understanding > > > > >> >> of the > > > > >> >> > contribution, and that it follows established practices: > > > > >> >> > https://arrow.apache.org/docs/dev/developers/reviewing.html > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Also, are the contributions to Arrow C++ Parquet being > > actively > > > > >> >> reviewed > > > > >> >> > > for potential new committers? > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > I would certainly do. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Regards > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Antoine. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
