That is fine with me.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:32 AM Uwe L. Korn wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, at 1:05 AM, Julien Le Dem wrote:
> > What does archiving the master branch look like? Are we renaming master and
> > leaving a readme pointing to the new repo?
>
> That would be my preferred option.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, at 1:05 AM, Julien Le Dem wrote:
> What does archiving the master branch look like? Are we renaming master and
> leaving a readme pointing to the new repo?
That would be my preferred option. Any objections?
What does archiving the master branch look like? Are we renaming master and
leaving a readme pointing to the new repo?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:30 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
> OK. There is still some code (examples, CLI tools) that needs to be
> moved over. Once that's done and all the outstanding
OK. There is still some code (examples, CLI tools) that needs to be
moved over. Once that's done and all the outstanding PRs are
moved/closed, I will do that
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:45 AM Uwe L. Korn wrote:
>
> Hello Wes,
>
> I'm definitely +1 on archiving the master branch. I'm not sure what yo
Hello Wes,
I'm definitely +1 on archiving the master branch. I'm not sure what you mean
exactly with this. I would have simply added a final commit that deletes all
code and adds a message to the README that the repository has moved into a
another repo.
Cheers
Uwe
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, at 10:
hi folks,
Could I get some feedback about the follow-up items? There are still
some parts of the codebase that need to be migrated. Additionally, I'm
proposing to archive the master branch so that people with build
toolchains running against parquet-cpp master will be forced to
migrate. The hard p
Might make sense to archive the master branch so that people's
now-outdated build toolchains (where they may be cloning
apache/parquet-cpp) will fail fast. We are already starting to get bug
reports along these lines.
Thoughts?
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 10:43 AM Wes McKinney wrote:
>
> We should pro
We should probably also write a blog post on the Apache Arrow website
to increase visibility of this move to the broader community.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 10:42 AM Wes McKinney wrote:
>
> Dear all -- the merge has been completed, thank you! 318 patches
> (after the filter-branch grafting procedur
Dear all -- the merge has been completed, thank you! 318 patches
(after the filter-branch grafting procedure) were merged to
apache/arrow
We have some follow up work to do:
* Move patches from apache/parquet-cpp to apache/arrow
* Add CONTRIBUTING.md and note to README that patches are no longer
a
After a lot of time beating my head against Windows toolchain issues
(I now know a _lot_ about this topic!) I have a green build at
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/2453
I'd like to merge this before much more time passes (i.e. today if
possible) and work on getting the outstanding patches mi
Great. It is definitely going to require some follow up patches to fix
up the various packaging tasks, but at least the Linux Python wheels
will still be working to start
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:04 PM Uwe L. Korn wrote:
>
> Hello Wes,
>
> I have not much time this week but I hope to squeeze in so
Hello Wes,
I have not much time this week but I hope to squeeze in some minutes tomorrow
afternoon to review the code. As this is a very big merge, I want to be extra
careful to not break anything really badly. Hopefully more eyes will help.
Thank you for all the work in pushing this forward in
Dear all,
The repo merge is nearly ready to go modulo some fixes to CI. There
will be a number of follow up issues to re-establish the various
(untested) build procedures in parquet-cpp
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/2453
I would like to merge this by EOD Wednesday 9/5, or Thursday at
late
hi all,
with 3 binding +1 votes, the vote carries. We will discuss with Apache
Arrow about how to specifically proceed
I have already done the preparatory work to undertake the merge
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/2453
thanks
Wes
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Wes McKinney wrote:
> Y
Yes, feel free to have a look at
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/2453
I'm not very in favor of having a commingled non-linear history that
makes git bisect difficult. We will have to discuss on the Arrow ML
Here's an example from Apache Spark where a similar merge took place
https://github
I have a very strong preference to keep the git history. I will have a look
tomorrow to find the correct git magic to get a linear history. For me a single
merge commit would be ok but I'm fine to spend an additional hour on this if
you care strongly about linear history.
Uwe
On Sun, Aug 19, 2
hi Ryan,
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Ryan Blue wrote:
> +1
>
> I think this sounds like a reasonable solution to the problem, and one that
> is supported by the people that will do the work.
>
> I'd appreciate some clarification on this:
>
>> The Parquet community can create scripts to "cut"
+1
I think this sounds like a reasonable solution to the problem, and one that
is supported by the people that will do the work.
I'd appreciate some clarification on this:
> The Parquet community can create scripts to "cut" Parquet C++ releases
I think this should be a requirement of considerin
OK. I'm a bit -0 on doing anything that results in Arrow having a
nonlinear git history (and rebasing is not really an option) but we
can discuss that more later
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Uwe L. Korn wrote:
> +1 on this but also see my comments in the mail on the discussions.
>
> We should
+1 on this but also see my comments in the mail on the discussions.
We should also keep the git history of parquet-cpp, that should not be hard
with git and there is probably a StackOverflow answer out there that gives you
the commands to do the merge.
Uwe
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, at 12:57 AM, We
In case any are interested: my estimate of the work involved in the
migration to be about a full day of total work, possibly less. As soon
as the migration plan is decided upon I intend to execute ASAP so that
ongoing development efforts are not disrupted.
Additionally, in flight patches do not al
hi all,
As discussed on the mailing list [1] I am proposing to undertake a
restructuring of the development process for parquet-cpp and its
consumption in the Arrow ecosystem to benefit the developers and users
of both communities.
The specific actions we would take would be:
1) Move the source
22 matches
Mail list logo
