Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
conbench-apache-arrow[bot] commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4593993438 After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 3 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit 35eed28c6faba1f5b24f6c0dac0973345ee44171. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The [full Conbench report](https://github.com/apache/arrow/runs/78886018630) has more details. It also includes information about 3 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou merged PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
alamb commented on code in PR #49947:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#discussion_r3277378917
##
docs/source/format/Columnar.rst:
##
@@ -1333,22 +1334,21 @@ The flattened version of this is: ::
For the buffers produced, we would have the following (refer to the
table above): ::
-buffer 0: field 0 validity
-buffer 1: field 1 validity
-buffer 2: field 1 values
-buffer 3: field 2 validity
-buffer 4: field 2 offsets
-buffer 5: field 3 validity
-buffer 6: field 3 values
-buffer 7: field 4 validity
-buffer 8: field 4 values
-buffer 9: field 5 validity
-buffer 10: field 5 offsets
-buffer 11: field 5 data
-
-The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a
-piece of memory. Generally these are interpreted relative to the
-**encapsulated message format** defined below.
+buffer 0: field 0 ('col1') validity
Review Comment:
this is much nicer
##
docs/source/format/Columnar.rst:
##
@@ -1502,9 +1502,14 @@ message flatbuffer is read, you can then read the
message body.
The stream writer can signal end-of-stream (EOS) either by writing 8 bytes
containing the 4-byte continuation indicator (``0x``) followed by 0
-metadata length (``0x``) or closing the stream interface. We
-recommend the ".arrows" file extension for the streaming format although
-in many cases these streams will not ever be stored as files.
+metadata length (``0x``) or closing the stream interface.
+
+File extension and MIME type
+
+
+IPC Streams are not always stored as files, but when they are, we recommend
Review Comment:
nit; I don't think they are commonly stored as files (the file format is
more often)
```suggestion
IPC Streams are not typically stored as files, but when they are, we
recommend
```
##
docs/source/format/Columnar.rst:
##
@@ -1333,22 +1334,21 @@ The flattened version of this is: ::
For the buffers produced, we would have the following (refer to the
table above): ::
-buffer 0: field 0 validity
-buffer 1: field 1 validity
-buffer 2: field 1 values
-buffer 3: field 2 validity
-buffer 4: field 2 offsets
-buffer 5: field 3 validity
-buffer 6: field 3 values
-buffer 7: field 4 validity
-buffer 8: field 4 values
-buffer 9: field 5 validity
-buffer 10: field 5 offsets
-buffer 11: field 5 data
-
-The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a
-piece of memory. Generally these are interpreted relative to the
-**encapsulated message format** defined below.
+buffer 0: field 0 ('col1') validity
+buffer 1: field 1 ('col1.a') validity
+buffer 2: field 1 ('col1.a') values
+buffer 3: field 2 ('col1.b') validity
+buffer 4: field 2 ('col1.b') offsets
+buffer 5: field 3 ('col1.b.item') validity
+buffer 6: field 3 ('col1.b.item') values
+buffer 7: field 4 ('col1.c') validity
+buffer 8: field 4 ('col1.c') values
+buffer 9: field 5 ('col2') validity
+buffer 10: field 5 ('col2') offsets
+buffer 11: field 5 ('col2') data
+
+The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a buffer's
+data, relatively to the start of the RecordBatch message's body.
Review Comment:
```suggestion
The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a
buffer's
data, relative to the start of the RecordBatch message's body.
```
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
CurtHagenlocher commented on code in PR #49947:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#discussion_r3259905351
##
docs/source/format/Columnar.rst:
##
@@ -1333,22 +1334,21 @@ The flattened version of this is: ::
For the buffers produced, we would have the following (refer to the
table above): ::
-buffer 0: field 0 validity
-buffer 1: field 1 validity
-buffer 2: field 1 values
-buffer 3: field 2 validity
-buffer 4: field 2 offsets
-buffer 5: field 3 validity
-buffer 6: field 3 values
-buffer 7: field 4 validity
-buffer 8: field 4 values
-buffer 9: field 5 validity
-buffer 10: field 5 offsets
-buffer 11: field 5 data
-
-The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a
-piece of memory. Generally these are interpreted relative to the
-**encapsulated message format** defined below.
+buffer 0: field 0 ('col1') validity
+buffer 1: field 1 ('col1.a') validity
+buffer 2: field 1 ('col1.a') values
+buffer 3: field 2 ('col1.b') validity
+buffer 4: field 2 ('col1.b') offsets
+buffer 5: field 3 ('col1.b.item') validity
+buffer 6: field 3 ('col1.b.item') values
+buffer 7: field 4 ('col1.c') validity
+buffer 8: field 4 ('col1.c') values
+buffer 9: field 5 ('col2') validity
+buffer 10: field 5 ('col2') offsets
+buffer 11: field 5 ('col2') data
+
+The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a buffer's
+data, relatively to the start of the RecordBatch message's body.
Review Comment:
nit: `relative` instead of `relatively`
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4438546538 Revision: 2f21cc848a928f5cdbd9c61e616c85b4b49e2d2e Submitted crossbow builds: [ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-49a37905b6](https://github.com/ursacomputing/crossbow/branches/all?query=actions-49a37905b6) |Task|Status| ||--| |preview-docs|[](https://github.com/ursacomputing/crossbow/actions/runs/25785381220/job/75737415050)| -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4438523503 @github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4438509997 Also @joellubi -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on code in PR #49947:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#discussion_r3232343419
##
docs/source/format/Columnar.rst:
##
@@ -1333,22 +1334,21 @@ The flattened version of this is: ::
For the buffers produced, we would have the following (refer to the
table above): ::
-buffer 0: field 0 validity
-buffer 1: field 1 validity
-buffer 2: field 1 values
-buffer 3: field 2 validity
-buffer 4: field 2 offsets
-buffer 5: field 3 validity
-buffer 6: field 3 values
-buffer 7: field 4 validity
-buffer 8: field 4 values
-buffer 9: field 5 validity
-buffer 10: field 5 offsets
-buffer 11: field 5 data
-
-The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a
-piece of memory. Generally these are interpreted relative to the
-**encapsulated message format** defined below.
+buffer 0: field 0 ('col1') validity
+buffer 1: field 1 ('col1.a') validity
+buffer 2: field 1 ('col1.a') values
+buffer 3: field 2 ('col1.b') validity
+buffer 4: field 2 ('col1.b') offsets
+buffer 5: field 3 ('col1.b.item') validity
+buffer 6: field 3 ('col1.b.item') values
+buffer 7: field 4 ('col1.c') validity
+buffer 8: field 4 ('col1.c') values
+buffer 9: field 5 ('col2') validity
+buffer 10: field 5 ('col2') offsets
+buffer 11: field 5 ('col2') data
+
+The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a buffer's
+data, relatively to the start of the RecordBatch message's body.
Review Comment:
I will try to find a wording that's more generic while still stating the
dominant usage.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4438450172 I've reworded the equivalence section to also mention the Schema and custom metadata in the IPC file footer. Again @alamb @tustvold @CurtHagenlocher @zeroshade @jbonofre @lidavidm do you want to take a look? This is a (minor) spec update, I would rather find consensus on this. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
paleolimbot commented on code in PR #49947:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#discussion_r3219447363
##
docs/source/format/Columnar.rst:
##
@@ -1333,22 +1334,21 @@ The flattened version of this is: ::
For the buffers produced, we would have the following (refer to the
table above): ::
-buffer 0: field 0 validity
-buffer 1: field 1 validity
-buffer 2: field 1 values
-buffer 3: field 2 validity
-buffer 4: field 2 offsets
-buffer 5: field 3 validity
-buffer 6: field 3 values
-buffer 7: field 4 validity
-buffer 8: field 4 values
-buffer 9: field 5 validity
-buffer 10: field 5 offsets
-buffer 11: field 5 data
-
-The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a
-piece of memory. Generally these are interpreted relative to the
-**encapsulated message format** defined below.
+buffer 0: field 0 ('col1') validity
+buffer 1: field 1 ('col1.a') validity
+buffer 2: field 1 ('col1.a') values
+buffer 3: field 2 ('col1.b') validity
+buffer 4: field 2 ('col1.b') offsets
+buffer 5: field 3 ('col1.b.item') validity
+buffer 6: field 3 ('col1.b.item') values
+buffer 7: field 4 ('col1.c') validity
+buffer 8: field 4 ('col1.c') values
+buffer 9: field 5 ('col2') validity
+buffer 10: field 5 ('col2') offsets
+buffer 11: field 5 ('col2') data
+
+The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a buffer's
+data, relatively to the start of the RecordBatch message's body.
Review Comment:
I don't mind either way, I was just reminded of it when Ben was working on
the nanoarrow IPC writer. Will RST let you make a footnote?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
paleolimbot commented on code in PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#discussion_r3219434036 ## docs/source/format/Columnar.rst: ## @@ -1524,21 +1529,46 @@ Schematically we have: :: - + -In the file format, there is no requirement that dictionary keys -should be defined in a ``DictionaryBatch`` before they are used in a -``RecordBatch``, as long as the keys are defined somewhere in the -file. Further more, it is invalid to have more than one **non-delta** -dictionary batch per dictionary ID (i.e. dictionary replacement is not -supported). Delta dictionaries are applied in the order they appear in -the file footer. We recommend the ".arrow" extension for files created with -this format. Note that files created with this format are sometimes called -"Feather V2" or with the ".feather" extension, the name and the extension -derived from "Feather (V1)", which was a proof of concept early in -the Arrow project for language-agnostic fast data frame storage for -Python (pandas) and R. +Equivalence with the IPC Streaming Format +~ + +While it is theoretically possible for the IPC File footer to list RecordBatch +messages in a differing order from the embedded IPC Stream's sequential order +(or even to repeat or omit some of the IPC Stream's RecordBatch messages), +compliant writers SHOULD arrange the IPC File footer so that an IPC File can be +read using an IPC Stream reader with equivalent results. Review Comment: That's what I was thinking of (but no need to deal with this now 🙂 ) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4418697038 @alamb @tustvold @CurtHagenlocher @zeroshade @jbonofre -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on code in PR #49947:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#discussion_r3217064222
##
docs/source/format/Columnar.rst:
##
@@ -1333,22 +1334,21 @@ The flattened version of this is: ::
For the buffers produced, we would have the following (refer to the
table above): ::
-buffer 0: field 0 validity
-buffer 1: field 1 validity
-buffer 2: field 1 values
-buffer 3: field 2 validity
-buffer 4: field 2 offsets
-buffer 5: field 3 validity
-buffer 6: field 3 values
-buffer 7: field 4 validity
-buffer 8: field 4 values
-buffer 9: field 5 validity
-buffer 10: field 5 offsets
-buffer 11: field 5 data
-
-The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a
-piece of memory. Generally these are interpreted relative to the
-**encapsulated message format** defined below.
+buffer 0: field 0 ('col1') validity
+buffer 1: field 1 ('col1.a') validity
+buffer 2: field 1 ('col1.a') values
+buffer 3: field 2 ('col1.b') validity
+buffer 4: field 2 ('col1.b') offsets
+buffer 5: field 3 ('col1.b.item') validity
+buffer 6: field 3 ('col1.b.item') values
+buffer 7: field 4 ('col1.c') validity
+buffer 8: field 4 ('col1.c') values
+buffer 9: field 5 ('col2') validity
+buffer 10: field 5 ('col2') offsets
+buffer 11: field 5 ('col2') data
+
+The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a buffer's
+data, relatively to the start of the RecordBatch message's body.
Review Comment:
Hmm, the question is then whether this section of the doc describes the IPC
protocol in a narrow sense, or whether it applies to any variation over it such
as the Dissociated IPC protocol.
For readability I think it's better if it describes the concrete IPC
protocol as commonly implemented. What do you think?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on code in PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#discussion_r3217000944 ## docs/source/format/Columnar.rst: ## @@ -1524,21 +1529,46 @@ Schematically we have: :: - + -In the file format, there is no requirement that dictionary keys -should be defined in a ``DictionaryBatch`` before they are used in a -``RecordBatch``, as long as the keys are defined somewhere in the -file. Further more, it is invalid to have more than one **non-delta** -dictionary batch per dictionary ID (i.e. dictionary replacement is not -supported). Delta dictionaries are applied in the order they appear in -the file footer. We recommend the ".arrow" extension for files created with -this format. Note that files created with this format are sometimes called -"Feather V2" or with the ".feather" extension, the name and the extension -derived from "Feather (V1)", which was a proof of concept early in -the Arrow project for language-agnostic fast data frame storage for -Python (pandas) and R. +Equivalence with the IPC Streaming Format +~ + +While it is theoretically possible for the IPC File footer to list RecordBatch +messages in a differing order from the embedded IPC Stream's sequential order +(or even to repeat or omit some of the IPC Stream's RecordBatch messages), +compliant writers SHOULD arrange the IPC File footer so that an IPC File can be +read using an IPC Stream reader with equivalent results. Review Comment: What do you call the features section? Is it https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/a0d2885b101acb439f7f79ec2237028974e74e64/format/Schema.fbs#L71-L81? I don't think anyone is reading this table currently. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
paleolimbot commented on code in PR #49947:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#discussion_r3203473469
##
docs/source/format/Columnar.rst:
##
@@ -1333,22 +1334,21 @@ The flattened version of this is: ::
For the buffers produced, we would have the following (refer to the
table above): ::
-buffer 0: field 0 validity
-buffer 1: field 1 validity
-buffer 2: field 1 values
-buffer 3: field 2 validity
-buffer 4: field 2 offsets
-buffer 5: field 3 validity
-buffer 6: field 3 values
-buffer 7: field 4 validity
-buffer 8: field 4 values
-buffer 9: field 5 validity
-buffer 10: field 5 offsets
-buffer 11: field 5 data
-
-The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a
-piece of memory. Generally these are interpreted relative to the
-**encapsulated message format** defined below.
+buffer 0: field 0 ('col1') validity
+buffer 1: field 1 ('col1.a') validity
+buffer 2: field 1 ('col1.a') values
+buffer 3: field 2 ('col1.b') validity
+buffer 4: field 2 ('col1.b') offsets
+buffer 5: field 3 ('col1.b.item') validity
+buffer 6: field 3 ('col1.b.item') values
+buffer 7: field 4 ('col1.c') validity
+buffer 8: field 4 ('col1.c') values
+buffer 9: field 5 ('col2') validity
+buffer 10: field 5 ('col2') offsets
+buffer 11: field 5 ('col2') data
+
+The ``Buffer`` Flatbuffers value describes the location and size of a buffer's
+data, relatively to the start of the RecordBatch message's body.
Review Comment:
I believe the offsets can be global in the dissociated IPC protocol
(metadata and bodies sent on separate streams), although I forget if that was
ever actually implemented anywhere.
##
docs/source/format/Columnar.rst:
##
@@ -1524,21 +1529,46 @@ Schematically we have: ::
-
+
-In the file format, there is no requirement that dictionary keys
-should be defined in a ``DictionaryBatch`` before they are used in a
-``RecordBatch``, as long as the keys are defined somewhere in the
-file. Further more, it is invalid to have more than one **non-delta**
-dictionary batch per dictionary ID (i.e. dictionary replacement is not
-supported). Delta dictionaries are applied in the order they appear in
-the file footer. We recommend the ".arrow" extension for files created with
-this format. Note that files created with this format are sometimes called
-"Feather V2" or with the ".feather" extension, the name and the extension
-derived from "Feather (V1)", which was a proof of concept early in
-the Arrow project for language-agnostic fast data frame storage for
-Python (pandas) and R.
+Equivalence with the IPC Streaming Format
+~
+
+While it is theoretically possible for the IPC File footer to list RecordBatch
+messages in a differing order from the embedded IPC Stream's sequential order
+(or even to repeat or omit some of the IPC Stream's RecordBatch messages),
+compliant writers SHOULD arrange the IPC File footer so that an IPC File can be
+read using an IPC Stream reader with equivalent results.
Review Comment:
It may be nice at some point to indicate in the "features" section of a
flatbuffers Schema that the stream can definitely be read as an IPC stream
(i.e., doesn't differ between what one would get from reading using the blocks
in the footer). The fact that nanoarrow does this blindly is not great and I'll
fix it, but it is a cool feature that you can do full scans without random
access in most cases.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4399168162 Preview URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/arrow-data/pr_docs/49947/format/Columnar.html -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4398789461 Revision: 51fb5a117f6d12f2591dd69f2c733be2eee5d2a7 Submitted crossbow builds: [ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-3cd6e7c16a](https://github.com/ursacomputing/crossbow/branches/all?query=actions-3cd6e7c16a) |Task|Status| ||--| |preview-docs|[](https://github.com/ursacomputing/crossbow/actions/runs/25507315263/job/74856417138)| -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4398768416 @github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4398427616 Revision: 28765e56181987fecc9e600a1f1e4abdc40f28a5 Submitted crossbow builds: [ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-6cfd80b0e4](https://github.com/ursacomputing/crossbow/branches/all?query=actions-6cfd80b0e4) |Task|Status| ||--| |preview-docs|[](https://github.com/ursacomputing/crossbow/actions/runs/25504940076/job/74847843075)| -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4398409781 @github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
pitrou commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4397998875 @github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
Re: [PR] GH-49946: [Format] Better document equivalence between IPC file and streams [arrow]
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #49947: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/49947#issuecomment-4398021568 Revision: 6ea2485bb16686940e96df2b0a2c6dab697a0003 Submitted crossbow builds: [ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-0208c5a8f4](https://github.com/ursacomputing/crossbow/branches/all?query=actions-0208c5a8f4) |Task|Status| ||--| |preview-docs|[](https://github.com/ursacomputing/crossbow/actions/runs/25502181010/job/74837847884)| -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
