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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > > [email protected]> > > >> > 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. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > >
