Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

We can do it either way. The main charter is we will work to extract the code. My suggestion is to avoid a bulk copy and extract what makes sense. In the Drill community, we've already refactored large chunks of code to make this portion independent. We probably need to do one more pass to get all

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Parth just split out the non-Drill-related bits here, we've been talking on the side about it https://github.com/parthchandra/arrow-cpp/commit/7565e570f7eabebcbba3a7fb3ccb6a0e605e6ef1 I've been assembling a C++ library from scratch from the specification (

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

To expand on what “straight to TLP” means (correct me if I’m wrong, Jacques). From an IP standpoint, the new project is a clone of Drill. It starts off with Drill’s code base. We then, as the sculptor said [1], chip away everything that doesn’t look like Arrow. Julian [1]

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Dear all — I converted our Google discussion document about the Arrow memory layout (prior to the ASF proposal) to Markdown and placed it here https://github.com/arrow-data/arrow-format Thanks, Wes On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: > Hey guys, one

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Hey guys, one other note on PR. To make arrow known and have a good launch, it is best to not announce anything publicly until the press release comes out. Will send out a press release draft shortly and then we can work with Apache PR to set an announcement date. On Jan 20, 2016 7:15 PM, "Jacques

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Yep, straight to TLP. -- Jacques Nadeau CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > That's great! So it's going straight to TLP? > Hey Everyone, > > Good news! The Apache board has approved the Apache Arrow as a new TLP. > I've asked the

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

That's great! So it's going straight to TLP? Hey Everyone, Good news! The Apache board has approved the Apache Arrow as a new TLP. I've asked the Apache INFRA team to set up required resources so we can start moving forward (ML, Git, Website, etc). I've started working on a press release to

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Awesome! Thanks for heavy lifting Jacques. 2016-01-20 15:30 GMT-08:00 Wes McKinney : > Fantastic! > > Really looking forward to working more with everyone. > > Thanks to Jacques for stewarding the process. This is a really important > step for the ecosystem. > > On Wed, Jan

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:28 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: > > Good news! The Apache board has approved the Apache Arrow as a new TLP. I've > asked the Apache INFRA team to set up required resources so we can start > moving forward (ML, Git, Website, etc). Mostly due to

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Hey Everyone, Good news! The Apache board has approved the Apache Arrow as a new TLP. I've asked the Apache INFRA team to set up required resources so we can start moving forward (ML, Git, Website, etc). I've started working on a press release to announce the Apache Arrow project and will

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Fantastic! Really looking forward to working more with everyone. Thanks to Jacques for stewarding the process. This is a really important step for the ecosystem. On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Reynold Xin wrote: > Thanks and great job driving this, Jacques! > > > On

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Thanks and great job driving this, Jacques! On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: > Hey Everyone, > > Good news! The Apache board has approved the Apache Arrow as a new TLP. > I've asked the Apache INFRA team to set up required resources so we can > start

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

+1 on a repo for the spec. I do have questions as well. In particular for the metadata. On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Parth Chandra wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Wes McKinney

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Parth Chandra wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Wes McKinney wrote: >> >> >> > >> > As far as the existing work is concerned, I'm not sure everyone is aware >> > of >> > the C++ code inside of Drill that can

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Jason Altekruse wrote: > Wes, > > I think the overall consensus is that one repo makes the most sense. > Considering the headache of just managing the gh-pages branch in a project > (I normally just have a separate copy of the repo for

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Wes, I think the overall consensus is that one repo makes the most sense. Considering the headache of just managing the gh-pages branch in a project (I normally just have a separate copy of the repo for this) I would not advocate for Julian's suggestion of diverging histories in the one repo. He

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Great to hear on the name approval! If it is OK I will consolidate to 1 repo and nest the C++ code under cpp/ and add some format Markdown files there in the next week or so. One repo is perfectly fine (as compared with Parquet) as long as the language implementations can evolve and be released

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Good news guys, Apache trademarks just approved the name Apache Arrow [1]. I will update the proposal and resubmit to the board. thanks, Jacques [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92 -- Jacques Nadeau CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Julian

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Sounds good. We'll need to start the Apache repo with just Apache code given how we've done the proposal. After we get established, we can break any independent progress you've made into a set of patches to add to the existing repo through the normal Apache commit process. -- Jacques Nadeau

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

You can also do the trick of having two branches that diverge at the very first commit. C++ and Java are in the same repository but if you have a given branch checked out you are looking at one or the other. That said, I’d be inclined to put everything in the same repo. The repo size will not

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

I guess what I meant is: separate repos => separate releases. One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned. I’m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore. The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have large files for regression testing and that’s

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

One repo should be a given. Separate directories should be the question. On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse wrote: > I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent releases, > but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not.

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release arrow-cpp and arrow-java independently or together with the same version numbers. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: > Thanks Wes, that's great! > On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney"

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not. Couldn't the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)? What other parts of version control are related to releasing? On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

For now I have presumptuously moved my C++ prototype to https://github.com/arrow-data/arrow I may have some cycles for this over the next few weeks -- it would be great to develop a draft of the IPC protocol for transmitting table / row batch metadata and data headers. I am going to be working

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Thanks Wes, that's great! On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" wrote: > hi folks, > > In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code > for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more > progress in the ASF: > >

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

hi folks, In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more progress in the ASF: https://github.com/arrow-data I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move there, along with a

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Just added my vote. On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers? > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place. >> >>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

I've opened a name search for our top vote getter. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92 I also just realized that my previously email dropped other recipients. Here it is below. I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters: Apache Arrow (17) Apache

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers? On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place. > > Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such, their > opinions can't be taken by

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the next step? On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > +1 to have a vote tomorrow. > > Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Jake, I think that Julian was trying make a point about the use of the complete name Apache Arrow, not thinking about the project name in isolation. That being said I completely agree that it is not a derogatory term. I might make a case that the logo should be a mathematical representation of an

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place. Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such, their opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice. There are issues of privilege, conflict of interest and so on. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

The term redskin is derogatory which is clearly not the same as arrow. I think if our logo is not a native American arrow there is no real issue. On Dec 1, 2015 12:32 AM, "Julian Hyde" wrote: > +1 to have a vote tomorrow. > > Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first > stage is to

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

+1 -- Jacques Nadeau CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: > Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I > missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel. > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM,

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

+1 to have a vote tomorrow. Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for the top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no trademarks for these in similar subject areas. There is a

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an example. The other part, frankly, is to pick

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: > Ok guys, > > I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a > quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue > with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine.

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Ok guys, I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second phase vote. Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference) Let's

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since there was a three-way tie for ninth place): VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether we're likely to have success. I've moved

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take that as tacit agreement to the proposed process. Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday. thanks! Jacques -- Jacques Nadeau CTO and

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Single vote for most preferred? Single transferable vote? On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: > Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take that as > tacit agreement to the proposed process. > > Let's move to the first vote phase.

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10. 10 is most preferred -- Jacques Nadeau CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > Single vote for most preferred? > > Single transferable vote? > > > > On

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

Shall we allow everyone 48 hours to add their own names to the doc referenced in the original email? A number of you were part of the list I've already added there. There are more people now so I think we need to allow additional submissions. On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Alex Levenson

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

SGTM -- where do we vote? On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: > Hey Guys, > > It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector proposal > before the board would like to consider it. The main point of contention > right now is the name of the