I've been reviewing and merging the PRs.
2. and 4. need to be rebased to be merged


On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks Nong. Will do the best we can on reviews and get Julien's help to
> merge since you'll be tied up. We can always return to items later and do
> some cleanup patches if there's technical debt remaining.
>
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016, Nong Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to merge 1) very shortly but I'm going to be pretty busy in the
> > coming
> > week getting ready for Spark Summit. I probably won't have too much time
> to
> > look at these until after but feel free to review and merge the patches.
> I
> > can look
> > after if that'd be helpful.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Wes McKinney <[email protected]
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > hello all,
> > >
> > > We're close to being back in the patch queue red zone. Let me try to
> > > make sense of what needs to reviewed and merged and in what order
> > > (from merge first to merge last):
> > >
> > > 1. PARQUET-167: Nong needs to sign off and merge.
> > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-cpp/pull/30
> > >
> > > 2. PARQUET-505: If Nong or Julien could comment and then merge
> > > independent of #1 (there are no obvious conflicts)
> > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-cpp/pull/44
> > >
> > > 3. PARQUET-501: Relatively small refactoring, but will need to be
> > > rebased after PARQUET-167
> > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-cpp/pull/46
> > >
> > > 4. PARQUET-497: Pretty invasive refactoring but absolutely essential
> > > for making progress on test fixtures. If this lingers beyond this week
> > > it may block development progress. Requires the other 3 patches to be
> > > merged and will need minor rebasing.
> > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-cpp/pull/47
> > >
> > > Small patch that can be merged whenever:
> > > https://github.com/apache/parquet-cpp/pull/45
> > > Not ready to merge: https://github.com/apache/parquet-cpp/pull/43
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Wes
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Julien

Reply via email to