Re: Collecting Arrow critique and our roadmap on that
A lot of good info here, I added a point that has come up often for me. On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:03 AM Wes McKinney wrote: > I read through and left some comments. > > Would be great to turn into an FAQ section in the docs and add a link > to the navigation on the front page of the website. > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:22 PM Uwe L. Korn wrote: > > > > Thanks to the all contributions that already came in. I made some more > additions and hope to turn this into a PR to the site soon. > > > > Uwe > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, at 10:46 AM, Micah Kornfield wrote: > > > I think this is a good idea, as well. I added comments and additions > on > > > the document. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Richardson < > > > neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Uwe, I think this is an excellent idea. I've started > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cgN7mYzH30URDTaioHsCP2d80wKKHDNs9f5s7vdb2mA/edit?usp=sharing > > > > to collect some ideas and notes. Once we have gathered our thoughts > > > > there, we can put them in the appropriate places. > > > > > > > > I think that some of the result will go into the FAQ, some into > > > > documentation (maybe more "how-to" and "getting started" guides in > the > > > > respective language docs, as well as some "how to share Arrow data > > > > from X to Y"), and other things that we haven't yet done should go > > > > into a sort of Roadmap document on the main website. We have some > very > > > > outdated content related to a roadmap on the confluence wiki that > > > > should be folded in as appropriate too. > > > > > > > > Neal > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:26 AM Uwe L. Korn > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > there has been a lot of public discussions lately with some > mentions of > > > > actually informed, valid critique of things in the Arrow project. > From my > > > > perspective, these things include "there is not STL-native C++ Arrow > API", > > > > "the base build requires too much dependencies", "the pyarrow > package is > > > > really huge and you cannot select single components". These are > things we > > > > cannot tackle at the moment due to the lack of contributors to the > project. > > > > But we can use this as a basis to point people that critique the > project on > > > > this that this is not intentional but a lack of resources as well as > it > > > > provides another point of entry for new contributors looking for > work. > > > > > > > > > > Thus I would like to start a document (possibly on the website) > where we > > > > list the major critiques on Arrow, mention our long-term solution to > that > > > > and what JIRAs need to be done for that. > > > > > > > > > > Would that be something others would also see as valuable? > > > > > > > > > > There has also been a lot of uninformed criticism, I think that > can be > > > > best combat by documentation, blog posts and public appearances at > > > > conferences and is not covered by this proposal. > > > > > > > > > > Uwe > > > > > > > >
Re: Collecting Arrow critique and our roadmap on that
I read through and left some comments. Would be great to turn into an FAQ section in the docs and add a link to the navigation on the front page of the website. On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:22 PM Uwe L. Korn wrote: > > Thanks to the all contributions that already came in. I made some more > additions and hope to turn this into a PR to the site soon. > > Uwe > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, at 10:46 AM, Micah Kornfield wrote: > > I think this is a good idea, as well. I added comments and additions on > > the document. > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Richardson < > > neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Uwe, I think this is an excellent idea. I've started > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cgN7mYzH30URDTaioHsCP2d80wKKHDNs9f5s7vdb2mA/edit?usp=sharing > > > to collect some ideas and notes. Once we have gathered our thoughts > > > there, we can put them in the appropriate places. > > > > > > I think that some of the result will go into the FAQ, some into > > > documentation (maybe more "how-to" and "getting started" guides in the > > > respective language docs, as well as some "how to share Arrow data > > > from X to Y"), and other things that we haven't yet done should go > > > into a sort of Roadmap document on the main website. We have some very > > > outdated content related to a roadmap on the confluence wiki that > > > should be folded in as appropriate too. > > > > > > Neal > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:26 AM Uwe L. Korn wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > there has been a lot of public discussions lately with some mentions of > > > actually informed, valid critique of things in the Arrow project. From my > > > perspective, these things include "there is not STL-native C++ Arrow API", > > > "the base build requires too much dependencies", "the pyarrow package is > > > really huge and you cannot select single components". These are things we > > > cannot tackle at the moment due to the lack of contributors to the > > > project. > > > But we can use this as a basis to point people that critique the project > > > on > > > this that this is not intentional but a lack of resources as well as it > > > provides another point of entry for new contributors looking for work. > > > > > > > > Thus I would like to start a document (possibly on the website) where we > > > list the major critiques on Arrow, mention our long-term solution to that > > > and what JIRAs need to be done for that. > > > > > > > > Would that be something others would also see as valuable? > > > > > > > > There has also been a lot of uninformed criticism, I think that can be > > > best combat by documentation, blog posts and public appearances at > > > conferences and is not covered by this proposal. > > > > > > > > Uwe > > > > >
Re: Collecting Arrow critique and our roadmap on that
Thanks to the all contributions that already came in. I made some more additions and hope to turn this into a PR to the site soon. Uwe On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, at 10:46 AM, Micah Kornfield wrote: > I think this is a good idea, as well. I added comments and additions on > the document. > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Richardson < > neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Uwe, I think this is an excellent idea. I've started > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cgN7mYzH30URDTaioHsCP2d80wKKHDNs9f5s7vdb2mA/edit?usp=sharing > > to collect some ideas and notes. Once we have gathered our thoughts > > there, we can put them in the appropriate places. > > > > I think that some of the result will go into the FAQ, some into > > documentation (maybe more "how-to" and "getting started" guides in the > > respective language docs, as well as some "how to share Arrow data > > from X to Y"), and other things that we haven't yet done should go > > into a sort of Roadmap document on the main website. We have some very > > outdated content related to a roadmap on the confluence wiki that > > should be folded in as appropriate too. > > > > Neal > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:26 AM Uwe L. Korn wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > there has been a lot of public discussions lately with some mentions of > > actually informed, valid critique of things in the Arrow project. From my > > perspective, these things include "there is not STL-native C++ Arrow API", > > "the base build requires too much dependencies", "the pyarrow package is > > really huge and you cannot select single components". These are things we > > cannot tackle at the moment due to the lack of contributors to the project. > > But we can use this as a basis to point people that critique the project on > > this that this is not intentional but a lack of resources as well as it > > provides another point of entry for new contributors looking for work. > > > > > > Thus I would like to start a document (possibly on the website) where we > > list the major critiques on Arrow, mention our long-term solution to that > > and what JIRAs need to be done for that. > > > > > > Would that be something others would also see as valuable? > > > > > > There has also been a lot of uninformed criticism, I think that can be > > best combat by documentation, blog posts and public appearances at > > conferences and is not covered by this proposal. > > > > > > Uwe > > >
Re: Collecting Arrow critique and our roadmap on that
I think this is a good idea, as well. I added comments and additions on the document. On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Richardson < neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > Uwe, I think this is an excellent idea. I've started > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cgN7mYzH30URDTaioHsCP2d80wKKHDNs9f5s7vdb2mA/edit?usp=sharing > to collect some ideas and notes. Once we have gathered our thoughts > there, we can put them in the appropriate places. > > I think that some of the result will go into the FAQ, some into > documentation (maybe more "how-to" and "getting started" guides in the > respective language docs, as well as some "how to share Arrow data > from X to Y"), and other things that we haven't yet done should go > into a sort of Roadmap document on the main website. We have some very > outdated content related to a roadmap on the confluence wiki that > should be folded in as appropriate too. > > Neal > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:26 AM Uwe L. Korn wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > there has been a lot of public discussions lately with some mentions of > actually informed, valid critique of things in the Arrow project. From my > perspective, these things include "there is not STL-native C++ Arrow API", > "the base build requires too much dependencies", "the pyarrow package is > really huge and you cannot select single components". These are things we > cannot tackle at the moment due to the lack of contributors to the project. > But we can use this as a basis to point people that critique the project on > this that this is not intentional but a lack of resources as well as it > provides another point of entry for new contributors looking for work. > > > > Thus I would like to start a document (possibly on the website) where we > list the major critiques on Arrow, mention our long-term solution to that > and what JIRAs need to be done for that. > > > > Would that be something others would also see as valuable? > > > > There has also been a lot of uninformed criticism, I think that can be > best combat by documentation, blog posts and public appearances at > conferences and is not covered by this proposal. > > > > Uwe >
Re: Collecting Arrow critique and our roadmap on that
Uwe, I think this is an excellent idea. I've started https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cgN7mYzH30URDTaioHsCP2d80wKKHDNs9f5s7vdb2mA/edit?usp=sharing to collect some ideas and notes. Once we have gathered our thoughts there, we can put them in the appropriate places. I think that some of the result will go into the FAQ, some into documentation (maybe more "how-to" and "getting started" guides in the respective language docs, as well as some "how to share Arrow data from X to Y"), and other things that we haven't yet done should go into a sort of Roadmap document on the main website. We have some very outdated content related to a roadmap on the confluence wiki that should be folded in as appropriate too. Neal On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:26 AM Uwe L. Korn wrote: > > Hello, > > there has been a lot of public discussions lately with some mentions of > actually informed, valid critique of things in the Arrow project. From my > perspective, these things include "there is not STL-native C++ Arrow API", > "the base build requires too much dependencies", "the pyarrow package is > really huge and you cannot select single components". These are things we > cannot tackle at the moment due to the lack of contributors to the project. > But we can use this as a basis to point people that critique the project on > this that this is not intentional but a lack of resources as well as it > provides another point of entry for new contributors looking for work. > > Thus I would like to start a document (possibly on the website) where we list > the major critiques on Arrow, mention our long-term solution to that and what > JIRAs need to be done for that. > > Would that be something others would also see as valuable? > > There has also been a lot of uninformed criticism, I think that can be best > combat by documentation, blog posts and public appearances at conferences and > is not covered by this proposal. > > Uwe
