Yes, feel free to have a look at https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/2453
I'm not very in favor of having a commingled non-linear history that makes git bisect difficult. We will have to discuss on the Arrow ML Here's an example from Apache Spark where a similar merge took place https://github.com/apache/spark/commit/2fe0a1aaeebbf7f60bd4130847d738c29f1e3d53 It would be my preference to have a single squashed commit whose message attributes the developers of the code and provides links back to the original commit history in the commit message - Wes On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote: > I have a very strong preference to keep the git history. I will have a look > tomorrow to find the correct git magic to get a linear history. For me a > single merge commit would be ok but I'm fine to spend an additional hour on > this if you care strongly about linear history. > > Uwe > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018, at 7:36 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: >> OK. I'm a bit -0 on doing anything that results in Arrow having a >> nonlinear git history (and rebasing is not really an option) but we >> can discuss that more later >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote: >> > +1 on this but also see my comments in the mail on the discussions. >> > >> > We should also keep the git history of parquet-cpp, that should not be >> > hard with git and there is probably a StackOverflow answer out there that >> > gives you the commands to do the merge. >> > >> > Uwe >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, at 12:57 AM, Wes McKinney wrote: >> >> In case any are interested: my estimate of the work involved in the >> >> migration to be about a full day of total work, possibly less. As soon >> >> as the migration plan is decided upon I intend to execute ASAP so that >> >> ongoing development efforts are not disrupted. >> >> >> >> Additionally, in flight patches do not all need to be merged. Patches >> >> can be easily edited to apply against the modified repository >> >> structure >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:04 PM, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > hi all, >> >> > >> >> > As discussed on the mailing list [1] I am proposing to undertake a >> >> > restructuring of the development process for parquet-cpp and its >> >> > consumption in the Arrow ecosystem to benefit the developers and users >> >> > of both communities. >> >> > >> >> > The specific actions we would take would be: >> >> > >> >> > 1) Move the source code currently located at src/ in the >> >> > apache/parquet-cpp repository [2] to the cpp/src/ directory located in >> >> > apache/arrow [3] >> >> > >> >> > 2) The parquet code tree would remain separate from the Arrow code >> >> > tree, though the two projects will continue to share code as they do >> >> > now >> >> > >> >> > 3) The build system in apache/parquet-cpp would be effectively >> >> > deprecated and can be mostly discarded, as it is largely redundant and >> >> > duplicated from the build system in apache/arrow >> >> > >> >> > 4) The Parquet and Arrow C++ communities will collaborate to provide >> >> > development workflows to enable contributors working exclusively on >> >> > the Parquet core functionality to be able to work unencumbered with >> >> > unnecessary build or test dependencies from the rest of the Arrow >> >> > codebase. Note that parquet-cpp already builds a significant portion >> >> > of Apache Arrow en route to creating its libraries >> >> > >> >> > 5) The Parquet community can create scripts to "cut" Parquet C++ >> >> > releases by packaging up the appropriate components and ensuring that >> >> > they can be built and installed independently as now >> >> > >> >> > 6) The CI processes would be merged -- since we already build the >> >> > Parquet libraries in Arrow's CI workflow, this would amount to >> >> > building the Parquet unit tests and running them. >> >> > >> >> > 7) Patches contributed that do not involve Arrow-related functionality >> >> > could use the PARQUET-XXXX marking, though some ARROW-XXXX patches may >> >> > span both codebases >> >> > >> >> > 8) Parquet C++ committers can be given push rights on apache/arrow >> >> > subject to ongoing good citizenry (e.g. not merging patches that break >> >> > builds). The Arrow PMC may need to vote on the procedure for offering >> >> > pass-through commit rights to anyone who has been invited to be a >> >> > committer for Apache Parquet >> >> > >> >> > 9) The contributors who work on both Arrow and Parquet will work in >> >> > good faith to ensure that that needs of Parquet-only developers (i.e. >> >> > who consume Parquet files in some way unrelated to the Arrow columnar >> >> > standard) are accommodated >> >> > >> >> > There are a number of particular details we will need to discuss >> >> > further (such as the specific logistics of the codebase surgery; e.g. >> >> > how to manage the commit history in apache/parquet-cpp -- do we care >> >> > about git blame?) >> >> > >> >> > This vote is to determine if the Parquet PMC is in favor of working in >> >> > good faith to execute on the above plan. I will inquire with the Arrow >> >> > PMC to see if we need to have a corresponding vote there, and also how >> >> > to handle the management of commit rights. >> >> > >> >> > [ ] +1: In favor of implementing the proposed monorepo plan >> >> > [ ] +0: . . . >> >> > [ ] -1: Not in favor because . . . >> >> > >> >> > Here is my vote: +1. >> >> > >> >> > Thank you, >> >> > Wes >> >> > >> >> > [1]: >> >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4bc135b4e933b959602df48bc3d5978ab7a4299d83d4295da9f498ac@%3Cdev.parquet.apache.org%3E >> >> > [2]: https://github.com/apache/parquet-cpp/tree/master/src/parquet >> >> > [3]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/tree/master/cpp/src
