Hi Rok, Thanks for working on this! * The mapping is perfect. There are some components which were deprecated and then removed, including parquet-cascading, but they were part of parquet-mr. * I would agree these labels do not seem to be very useful. On the other hand, we are migrating all the jiras with all the relevant data. I don't have a strong opinion on either dropping or keeping these labels.
Cheers, Gabor Rok Mihevc <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2024. jún. 13., Cs, 20:03): > 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Maybe we should just start the vote? > > > > On Thursday, June 13, 2024, Julien Le Dem <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 4:49 PM Uwe L. Korn <[email protected]> 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 <[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/zklp0lwcbcsdzgxoxy6wqjwrvt6y4s > > > 9p > > > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/14542 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Rok > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
