[Rust] Possible blocking issue for 0.16 release

[Andy Grove <an...@gmail.com>]

Apologies for showing up at the last minute but I'm now re-engaged in the
project after a bit of an absence and I noticed that we have some
dependency conflicts due to the parquet-format crate (not controlled by
Apache) using Thrift 0.12 whereas the parquet crate uses Thrift 0.13 and
they require different versions of the byteorder crate.

However, I have seen that not everyone is running into this issue, which
confuses me. Maybe this is related to cached dependencies and the fact that
we do not check in Cargo.lock (which we should not need to since this
project is a library rather than a binary).

See ARROW-7563 and ARROW-7507 for more context.

I have created a PR against the parquet-format crate and hopefully, we can
get a new version published.

We need to get this crate under ASF control IMHO. See ARROW-6256.

Andy.

Re: [Rust] Possible blocking issue for 0.16 release

[Neville Dipale <ne...@gmail.com>]

Hi Andy,

I think `cargo update` is the correct approach to resolve this issue. Yes,
we've got quite a bit of backlog in Rust, but we should initiate the
process to adopt parquet-format with Chao and Ivan's approval post 0.16.

In the interim we could fix the thrift dependency issue upstream (as that
could be quicker). I'm hoping to make some time before 1.0.0 to update
parquet to the latest format.

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020, 18:01 Andy Grove, <an...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apologies for showing up at the last minute but I'm now re-engaged in the
> project after a bit of an absence and I noticed that we have some
> dependency conflicts due to the parquet-format crate (not controlled by
> Apache) using Thrift 0.12 whereas the parquet crate uses Thrift 0.13 and
> they require different versions of the byteorder crate.
>
> However, I have seen that not everyone is running into this issue, which
> confuses me. Maybe this is related to cached dependencies and the fact that
> we do not check in Cargo.lock (which we should not need to since this
> project is a library rather than a binary).
>
> See ARROW-7563 and ARROW-7507 for more context.
>
> I have created a PR against the parquet-format crate and hopefully, we can
> get a new version published.
>
> We need to get this crate under ASF control IMHO. See ARROW-6256.
>
> Andy.
>

Re: [Rust] Possible blocking issue for 0.16 release

[Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the update Andy!


On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 5:21 PM Andy Grove <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Running "cargo update" locally resolved the issue for me, so I guess this
> isn't a blocker after all. Cargo update actually downgraded the Thrift
> dependency back to 0.12 and I see that in master we are using 0.12 so I
> probably had a lock file that was generated due to using Thrift 0.13 on a
> branch previously. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 9:00 AM Andy Grove <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Apologies for showing up at the last minute but I'm now re-engaged in the
> > project after a bit of an absence and I noticed that we have some
> > dependency conflicts due to the parquet-format crate (not controlled by
> > Apache) using Thrift 0.12 whereas the parquet crate uses Thrift 0.13 and
> > they require different versions of the byteorder crate.
> >
> > However, I have seen that not everyone is running into this issue, which
> > confuses me. Maybe this is related to cached dependencies and the fact that
> > we do not check in Cargo.lock (which we should not need to since this
> > project is a library rather than a binary).
> >
> > See ARROW-7563 and ARROW-7507 for more context.
> >
> > I have created a PR against the parquet-format crate and hopefully, we can
> > get a new version published.
> >
> > We need to get this crate under ASF control IMHO. See ARROW-6256.
> >
> > Andy.
> >

Re: [Rust] Possible blocking issue for 0.16 release

[Andy Grove <an...@gmail.com>]

Running "cargo update" locally resolved the issue for me, so I guess this
isn't a blocker after all. Cargo update actually downgraded the Thrift
dependency back to 0.12 and I see that in master we are using 0.12 so I
probably had a lock file that was generated due to using Thrift 0.13 on a
branch previously. Sorry for the confusion.

On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 9:00 AM Andy Grove <an...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apologies for showing up at the last minute but I'm now re-engaged in the
> project after a bit of an absence and I noticed that we have some
> dependency conflicts due to the parquet-format crate (not controlled by
> Apache) using Thrift 0.12 whereas the parquet crate uses Thrift 0.13 and
> they require different versions of the byteorder crate.
>
> However, I have seen that not everyone is running into this issue, which
> confuses me. Maybe this is related to cached dependencies and the fact that
> we do not check in Cargo.lock (which we should not need to since this
> project is a library rather than a binary).
>
> See ARROW-7563 and ARROW-7507 for more context.
>
> I have created a PR against the parquet-format crate and hopefully, we can
> get a new version published.
>
> We need to get this crate under ASF control IMHO. See ARROW-6256.
>
> Andy.
>