I'm in agreement with Wes here. Packaging is much higher priority right
now. When we have an MVP for that we can revisit the build system issue,
which is definitely worth exploring.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 20:50 Wes McKinney wrote:
> > As far as Bazel goes, I can put up a patch and discuss some of
> As far as Bazel goes, I can put up a patch and discuss some of the pros/cons
> in the context of stated issues around packaging. It likely won't help with
> the release reliability questions, which seem separate.
Indeed, the issues we have had with packaging are not (AFAICT) related
to the bui
oh gosh, I just saw this reply too!
I've just caught up with the thread around the build+release/packaging. As
far as Bazel goes, I can put up a patch and discuss some of the pros/cons
in the context of stated issues around packaging. It likely won't help with
the release reliability questions, wh
hi Buro,
Sorry for the delay in writing back!
Our build systems would benefit a great deal from this sort of
attention. Each component has its own build system at the moment, but
it would be useful to have a Bazel-based build, for C++ at least but
perhaps more components in the future. We've inve
Truncation error:
*helping contribute back to the ecosystem. Thanks for all the hard work!
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Bhaskar Mookerji
wrote:
> Hey ya'll -
>
> I've been following Apache Arrow for a bit and am catching up by building
> the project locally on my machine. I was wondering: w
Hey ya'll -
I've been following Apache Arrow for a bit and am catching up by building
the project locally on my machine. I was wondering: would there be any
interest in having a Bazel-based build available for arrow-cpp and its
bindings?
I would be happy to put up a polished proof of concept as a
