+1 (binding)
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024, at 4:42 PM, Micah Kornfield wrote: > +1 (non-binding) rom me > > On Thursday, June 13, 2024, Gang Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 on this >> >> BTW, I created following PRs to enable github issues to these repos: >> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/255 >> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-java/pull/1362 >> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-testing/pull/50 >> >> I will not merge them until the formal vote passes. >> >> Best, >> Gang >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 7:43 PM Rok Mihevc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Discussing migration of parquet-cpp issues into Arrow's GitHub issue >> > tracker [1] produced the idea of moving other parquet tickets into GitHub >> > issue trackers as well. >> > Since parquet-format, parquet-site and parquet-testing separate repos, >> > issues related to them should probably be moved into their issue >> trackers. >> > >> > To preview the state after migration I've split tickets by component (see >> > mapping below) and imported them into testing repos for preview. >> > >> > jira/parquet-avro --> github/parquet-java >> > jira/parquet-cascading --> github/parquet-java >> > jira/parquet-cli --> github/parquet-java >> > jira/parquet-cpp --> github/arrow >> > jira/parquet-format --> github//parquet-format >> > jira/parquet-hadoop --> github//parquet-java >> > jira/parquet-mr --> github/parquet-java >> > jira/parquet-pig --> github/parquet-java >> > jira/parquet-protobuf --> github/parquet-java >> > jira/parquet-site --> github/parquet-site >> > jira/parquet-testing --> github/parquet-testing >> > jira/parquet-thrift --> github/parquet-java >> > >> > https://github.com/rok/test-parquet-cpp/issues >> > https://github.com/rok/test-parquet-java/issues >> > https://github.com/rok/test-parquet-format/issues >> > https://github.com/rok/test-parquet-site/issues >> > https://github.com/rok/test-parquet-testing/issues >> > >> > I would like to start a discussion here to see if the community is open >> to >> > migration, should proposed migration be amended and to call for a vote if >> > we reach consensus. >> > >> > For some considerations the Arrow community had when migrating you can >> also >> > see related issue [2]. >> > >> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/zklp0lwcbcsdzgxoxy6wqjwrvt6y4s9p >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/14542 >> > >> > Rok >> > >>
