I'll start a vote thread but would still welcome any feedback. It would also be nice to confirm the following: * is the component-to-repo mapping ok as proposed (e.g. jira/parquet-cascading --> github/parquet-java) * do we want to keep old labels? they were not used much in Jira see label counts below (this is for ~1500 java issues):
pull-request-available 268 filter2 12 newbie 8 pick-me-up 8 parquet 5 parquetWriter 4 security 4 patch 4 features 3 easyfix 3 documentation 3 beginner 2 java 2 avro 2 Parquet 2 noob 2 performance 2 random-access 1 decimal 1 fixed 1 empty-file 1 Drill 1 parquet-tools 1 jackson-databind 1 vulnerabilities 1 bug 1 column 1 parquetReader 1 usability 1 newbe 1 n00b 1 ProtoParquetWriter.Builder 1 correctness 1 serde 1 None 1 spark 1 nullpointerexception 1 hive 1 hadoop 1 OOM 1 question 1 unique 1 On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 5:43 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe we should just start the vote? > > On Thursday, June 13, 2024, Julien Le Dem <jul...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 4:49 PM Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote: > > > > > +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 <ust...@gmail.com> 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 <rok.mih...@gmail.com> > > > 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/zklp0lwcbcsdzgxoxy6wqjwrvt6y4s > > 9p > > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/14542 > > > >> > > > > >> > Rok > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
