Looking to 1.0

[Neal Richardson <ne...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,
Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start mobilizing for
the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next release
should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so we're due to
release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most recently
discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient history,
see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)

Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for 1.0, let's
discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure that we've
identified all format/specification issues we think we must resolve before
declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release already. There
are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those should
also be labeled blockers for 1.0.

It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of expertise
and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and prioritized
appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for making a 1.0
release, we can work together on burning those down.

Neal

[1]:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E

[2]:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
[3]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
[4]:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Neal Richardson <ne...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for reviewing, Jacques. Re: Jira tagging, the convention I've seen
is to use "Fix Version" for open tickets to indicate a target release
(that's what the confluence board draws from, for example). So by my
understanding, Fix Version == 1.0.0 and Priority == Blocker says that
they're things we have to resolve before 1.0.0. Happy to follow a different
convention though if folks can think of something better.

Neal

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:

> I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of mind
> and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility changes in
> the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I don't
> exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release for a
> ticket.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
>
> For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in trying to
> resolve?
>
> thanks,
> Jacques
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start mobilizing
> for
> > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next
> release
> > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so we're due
> to
> > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
> recently
> > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient history,
> > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> >
> > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for 1.0,
> let's
> > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure that
> we've
> > identified all format/specification issues we think we must resolve
> before
> > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release already. There
> > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those should
> > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> >
> > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of expertise
> > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and prioritized
> > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for making a 1.0
> > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> >
> > Neal
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> >
> > [2]:
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > [3]:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > [4]:
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> >
>

Re: Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Neal Richardson <ne...@gmail.com>]

Hi all, to help us get ready, I've started a draft blog post for the 0.16
release: https://github.com/apache/arrow-site/pull/41

We'll need to fill in the sections. Feel free to push edits to my branch,
or you can also email me (personally is fine) and I can paste them in.

Neal


On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 5:37 PM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:

> Understood and appreciated. Yeah, it can become a bit of a mess.
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:22 PM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Will do -- there were many C++ and Python-related issues that I think
> > were put in 1.0.0 / 0.16.0 overly optimistically and so I removed the
> > Fix Version entirely (some of these had been pushed off 3-4 major
> > releases ago). I may have removed some Fix Versions from other
> > components that should have been rolled over -- sorry about that. It's
> > hard to judge on some issues that have been open for 6-12 months or
> > more.
> >
> > In general I think we should try to be more conservative about what
> > issues we pre-emptively assign fix versions -- there may be a more
> > constructive way that we can prioritize issues and distinguish between
> > "optimistic" / nice-to-have issues and "must do to release" issues.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:42 PM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It would be helpful that when something is assigned to a release and
> you
> > > want to push it out, you push it to the next release as opposed to
> > removing
> > > a fix version entirely. Thanks!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:26 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> > > > work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
> > > > (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
> > > > columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
> > > > back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
> > > > path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done
> to
> > > > > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be
> done
> > > > > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end
> of
> > > > > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> > > > > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner,
> > let's
> > > > > release 1.0.0 sooner.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> > > > > <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before
> > we
> > > > cast
> > > > > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of
> > > > enumerating
> > > > > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we
> can
> > get
> > > > it
> > > > > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a
> > 0.17
> > > > > > release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added
> them
> > as
> > > > > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed
> on
> > > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > to 10
> > > > > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think
> this
> > is
> > > > an
> > > > > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded
> to
> > > > > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would
> > we
> > > > have
> > > > > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at
> this
> > > > point?
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Neal
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help
> out
> > > > with
> > > > > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <
> > liya.fan03@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I
> > would
> > > > like to
> > > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> > > > jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I
> > think
> > > > are top
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird
> > incompatibility
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as
> > pre-1.0
> > > > as I
> > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target
> > > > release
> > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have
> > > > interest in
> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time
> to
> > > > start
> > > > > > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided
> > that
> > > > our
> > > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since
> > > > 0.15, so
> > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for
> > when
> > > > we most
> > > > > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan
> of
> > > > ancient
> > > > > > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it
> is
> > > > time for
> > > > > > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be
> to
> > > > make sure
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think
> we
> > must
> > > > > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0
> > release
> > > > > > > already.
> > > > > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps
> > some
> > > > of those
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their
> > > > areas of
> > > > > > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is
> ticketed
> > and
> > > > > > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required
> > tasks for
> > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> >
>

Re: Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>]

Understood and appreciated. Yeah, it can become a bit of a mess.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:22 PM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Will do -- there were many C++ and Python-related issues that I think
> were put in 1.0.0 / 0.16.0 overly optimistically and so I removed the
> Fix Version entirely (some of these had been pushed off 3-4 major
> releases ago). I may have removed some Fix Versions from other
> components that should have been rolled over -- sorry about that. It's
> hard to judge on some issues that have been open for 6-12 months or
> more.
>
> In general I think we should try to be more conservative about what
> issues we pre-emptively assign fix versions -- there may be a more
> constructive way that we can prioritize issues and distinguish between
> "optimistic" / nice-to-have issues and "must do to release" issues.
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:42 PM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > It would be helpful that when something is assigned to a release and you
> > want to push it out, you push it to the next release as opposed to
> removing
> > a fix version entirely. Thanks!
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:26 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> > > work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
> > > (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
> > > columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
> > > back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
> > > path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
> > > > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
> > > > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
> > > > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> > > > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner,
> let's
> > > > release 1.0.0 sooner.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> > > > <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before
> we
> > > cast
> > > > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of
> > > enumerating
> > > > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can
> get
> > > it
> > > > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a
> 0.17
> > > > > release.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them
> as
> > > > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > to 10
> > > > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this
> is
> > > an
> > > > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> > > > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would
> we
> > > have
> > > > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this
> > > point?
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Neal
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out
> > > with
> > > > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <
> liya.fan03@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I
> would
> > > like to
> > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> > > jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I
> think
> > > are top
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird
> incompatibility
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as
> pre-1.0
> > > as I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target
> > > release
> > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have
> > > interest in
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to
> > > start
> > > > > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided
> that
> > > our
> > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since
> > > 0.15, so
> > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for
> when
> > > we most
> > > > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of
> > > ancient
> > > > > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is
> > > time for
> > > > > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to
> > > make sure
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we
> must
> > > > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0
> release
> > > > > > already.
> > > > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps
> some
> > > of those
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their
> > > areas of
> > > > > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed
> and
> > > > > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required
> tasks for
> > > > > > making
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
>

Re: Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>]

Will do -- there were many C++ and Python-related issues that I think
were put in 1.0.0 / 0.16.0 overly optimistically and so I removed the
Fix Version entirely (some of these had been pushed off 3-4 major
releases ago). I may have removed some Fix Versions from other
components that should have been rolled over -- sorry about that. It's
hard to judge on some issues that have been open for 6-12 months or
more.

In general I think we should try to be more conservative about what
issues we pre-emptively assign fix versions -- there may be a more
constructive way that we can prioritize issues and distinguish between
"optimistic" / nice-to-have issues and "must do to release" issues.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:42 PM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> It would be helpful that when something is assigned to a release and you
> want to push it out, you push it to the next release as opposed to removing
> a fix version entirely. Thanks!
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:26 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> > work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
> > (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
> > columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
> > back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
> > path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
> > > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
> > > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
> > > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> > > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's
> > > release 1.0.0 sooner.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> > > <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we
> > cast
> > > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of
> > enumerating
> > > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can get
> > it
> > > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a 0.17
> > > > release.
> > > >
> > > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
> > > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > to 10
> > > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this is
> > an
> > > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> > > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we
> > have
> > > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> > > >
> > > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this
> > point?
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Neal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out
> > with
> > > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would
> > like to
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think
> > are top
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0
> > as I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target
> > release
> > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have
> > interest in
> > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to
> > start
> > > > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that
> > our
> > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since
> > 0.15, so
> > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when
> > we most
> > > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of
> > ancient
> > > > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is
> > time for
> > > > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to
> > make sure
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we must
> > > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> > > > > already.
> > > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some
> > of those
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their
> > areas of
> > > > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and
> > > > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for
> > > > > making
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >

Re: Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>]

It would be helpful that when something is assigned to a release and you
want to push it out, you push it to the next release as opposed to removing
a fix version entirely. Thanks!

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:26 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
> (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
> columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
> back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
> path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
> > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
> > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
> > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's
> > release 1.0.0 sooner.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> > <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we
> cast
> > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of
> enumerating
> > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can get
> it
> > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a 0.17
> > > release.
> > >
> > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
> > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> to 10
> > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this is
> an
> > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we
> have
> > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> > >
> > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this
> point?
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Neal
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out
> with
> > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > > >
> > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would
> like to
> > > > > try
> > > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think
> are top
> > > > of
> > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility
> > > > changes
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0
> as I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target
> release
> > > > for a
> > > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have
> interest in
> > > > > trying
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to
> start
> > > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that
> our
> > > > next
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since
> 0.15, so
> > > > > we're
> > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when
> we most
> > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of
> ancient
> > > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is
> time for
> > > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to
> make sure
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we must
> > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> > > > already.
> > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some
> of those
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their
> areas of
> > > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and
> > > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for
> > > > making
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
>

Re: Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>]

That sounds fine to me. I don't see many blocking issues for a major
release, and the nightly reports are fairly clean, so I think we
should try to be ready to go at the beginning of that week of the
19th.

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:40 PM Neal Richardson
<ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If we expect that the release process may be less stable this time, should
> we bump up our target date for an RC, like to the 20th or 21st (two weeks
> from now)? That would give us more leeway to make sure we get a release out
> before the end of January.
>
> Neal
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:02 PM Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sounds good to me. I'll help with the jira curation.
> >
> > Because of the recent CI migrations we'll need to be more thorough during
> > the verification, and I also expect minor issues during the release
> > process.
> > So I volunteer to be the RM if no one else wants to jump in.
> >
> > Thanks, Krisztian
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:26 PM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> > > work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
> > > (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
> > > columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
> > > back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
> > > path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
> > > > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
> > > > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
> > > > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> > > > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's
> > > > release 1.0.0 sooner.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> > > > <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we
> > cast
> > > > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of
> > enumerating
> > > > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can
> > get it
> > > > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a
> > 0.17
> > > > > release.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
> > > > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release to
> > 10
> > > > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this
> > is an
> > > > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> > > > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we
> > have
> > > > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this
> > point?
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Neal
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out
> > with
> > > > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I
> > would like to
> > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think
> > are top
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird
> > incompatibility
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as
> > pre-1.0 as I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target
> > release
> > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have
> > interest in
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to
> > start
> > > > > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided
> > that our
> > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since
> > 0.15, so
> > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for
> > when we most
> > > > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of
> > ancient
> > > > > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is
> > time for
> > > > > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to
> > make sure
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we
> > must
> > > > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> > > > > > already.
> > > > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some
> > of those
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their
> > areas of
> > > > > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed
> > and
> > > > > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks
> > for
> > > > > > making
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >

Re: Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>]

I just finished an initial curation of the JIRA backlog. There are now
137 issues which is probably more than will be resolved before
releasing. I noticed some concerning bugs that may need attention, but
if there are any new feature or nice-to-have issues that you are
familiar with please remove them from the 0.16.0 milestone if you
don't think they will be done in the next 7-10 days

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:28 PM Krisztián Szűcs
<sz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:40 PM Neal Richardson
> <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If we expect that the release process may be less stable this time, should
> > we bump up our target date for an RC, like to the 20th or 21st (two weeks
> > from now)? That would give us more leeway to make sure we get a release out
> > before the end of January.
> Agree.
> >
> > Neal
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:02 PM Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds good to me. I'll help with the jira curation.
> > >
> > > Because of the recent CI migrations we'll need to be more thorough during
> > > the verification, and I also expect minor issues during the release
> > > process.
> > > So I volunteer to be the RM if no one else wants to jump in.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Krisztian
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:26 PM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> > > > work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
> > > > (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
> > > > columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
> > > > back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
> > > > path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
> > > > > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
> > > > > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
> > > > > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> > > > > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's
> > > > > release 1.0.0 sooner.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> > > > > <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we
> > > cast
> > > > > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of
> > > enumerating
> > > > > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can
> > > get it
> > > > > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a
> > > 0.17
> > > > > > release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
> > > > > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> > > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release to
> > > 10
> > > > > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this
> > > is an
> > > > > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> > > > > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we
> > > have
> > > > > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this
> > > point?
> > > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Neal
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out
> > > with
> > > > > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> > > jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I
> > > would like to
> > > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> > > jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think
> > > are top
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird
> > > incompatibility
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as
> > > pre-1.0 as I
> > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target
> > > release
> > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have
> > > interest in
> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to
> > > start
> > > > > > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided
> > > that our
> > > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since
> > > 0.15, so
> > > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for
> > > when we most
> > > > > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of
> > > ancient
> > > > > > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is
> > > time for
> > > > > > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to
> > > make sure
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we
> > > must
> > > > > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> > > > > > > already.
> > > > > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some
> > > of those
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their
> > > areas of
> > > > > > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks
> > > for
> > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >

Re: Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:40 PM Neal Richardson
<ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If we expect that the release process may be less stable this time, should
> we bump up our target date for an RC, like to the 20th or 21st (two weeks
> from now)? That would give us more leeway to make sure we get a release out
> before the end of January.
Agree.
>
> Neal
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:02 PM Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sounds good to me. I'll help with the jira curation.
> >
> > Because of the recent CI migrations we'll need to be more thorough during
> > the verification, and I also expect minor issues during the release
> > process.
> > So I volunteer to be the RM if no one else wants to jump in.
> >
> > Thanks, Krisztian
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:26 PM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> > > work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
> > > (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
> > > columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
> > > back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
> > > path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
> > > > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
> > > > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
> > > > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> > > > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's
> > > > release 1.0.0 sooner.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> > > > <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we
> > cast
> > > > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of
> > enumerating
> > > > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can
> > get it
> > > > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a
> > 0.17
> > > > > release.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
> > > > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release to
> > 10
> > > > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this
> > is an
> > > > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> > > > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we
> > have
> > > > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this
> > point?
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Neal
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out
> > with
> > > > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I
> > would like to
> > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think
> > are top
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird
> > incompatibility
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as
> > pre-1.0 as I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target
> > release
> > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have
> > interest in
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to
> > start
> > > > > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided
> > that our
> > > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since
> > 0.15, so
> > > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for
> > when we most
> > > > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of
> > ancient
> > > > > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is
> > time for
> > > > > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to
> > make sure
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we
> > must
> > > > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> > > > > > already.
> > > > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some
> > of those
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their
> > areas of
> > > > > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed
> > and
> > > > > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks
> > for
> > > > > > making
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> >

Re: Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Neal Richardson <ne...@gmail.com>]

If we expect that the release process may be less stable this time, should
we bump up our target date for an RC, like to the 20th or 21st (two weeks
from now)? That would give us more leeway to make sure we get a release out
before the end of January.

Neal

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:02 PM Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sounds good to me. I'll help with the jira curation.
>
> Because of the recent CI migrations we'll need to be more thorough during
> the verification, and I also expect minor issues during the release
> process.
> So I volunteer to be the RM if no one else wants to jump in.
>
> Thanks, Krisztian
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:26 PM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> > work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
> > (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
> > columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
> > back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
> > path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
> > > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
> > > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
> > > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> > > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's
> > > release 1.0.0 sooner.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> > > <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we
> cast
> > > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of
> enumerating
> > > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can
> get it
> > > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a
> 0.17
> > > > release.
> > > >
> > > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
> > > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release to
> 10
> > > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this
> is an
> > > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> > > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we
> have
> > > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> > > >
> > > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this
> point?
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Neal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out
> with
> > > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I
> would like to
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think
> are top
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird
> incompatibility
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as
> pre-1.0 as I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target
> release
> > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have
> interest in
> > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to
> start
> > > > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided
> that our
> > > > > next
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since
> 0.15, so
> > > > > > we're
> > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for
> when we most
> > > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of
> ancient
> > > > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is
> time for
> > > > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to
> make sure
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we
> must
> > > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> > > > > already.
> > > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some
> of those
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their
> areas of
> > > > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed
> and
> > > > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks
> for
> > > > > making
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
>

Re: Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com>]

Sounds good to me. I'll help with the jira curation.

Because of the recent CI migrations we'll need to be more thorough during
the verification, and I also expect minor issues during the release process.
So I volunteer to be the RM if no one else wants to jump in.

Thanks, Krisztian

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:26 PM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
> (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
> columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
> back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
> path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
> > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
> > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
> > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's
> > release 1.0.0 sooner.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> > <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we cast
> > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of enumerating
> > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can get it
> > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a 0.17
> > > release.
> > >
> > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
> > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release to 10
> > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this is an
> > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we have
> > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> > >
> > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this point?
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Neal
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out with
> > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > > >
> > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to
> > > > > try
> > > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think are top
> > > > of
> > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility
> > > > changes
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release
> > > > for a
> > > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in
> > > > > trying
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start
> > > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our
> > > > next
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so
> > > > > we're
> > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
> > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient
> > > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for
> > > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we must
> > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> > > > already.
> > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of
> > > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and
> > > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for
> > > > making
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >

Re: Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Neal Richardson <ne...@gmail.com>]

Thanks, Wes. I made
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+0.16.0+Release to
help us track 0.16.

Neal

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:26 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
> work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
> (others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
> columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
> back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
> path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
> > put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
> > I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
> > January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> > get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's
> > release 1.0.0 sooner.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> > <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we
> cast
> > > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of
> enumerating
> > > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can get
> it
> > > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a 0.17
> > > release.
> > >
> > > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
> > > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> to 10
> > > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this is
> an
> > > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> > > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we
> have
> > > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> > >
> > > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this
> point?
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Neal
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out
> with
> > > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > > >
> > > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would
> like to
> > > > > try
> > > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think
> are top
> > > > of
> > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility
> > > > changes
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0
> as I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target
> release
> > > > for a
> > > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have
> interest in
> > > > > trying
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to
> start
> > > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that
> our
> > > > next
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since
> 0.15, so
> > > > > we're
> > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when
> we most
> > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of
> ancient
> > > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is
> time for
> > > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to
> make sure
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we must
> > > > resolve
> > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> > > > already.
> > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some
> of those
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their
> areas of
> > > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and
> > > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for
> > > > making
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
>

Timeline for next major release [was Re: Looking to 1.0]

[Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>]

I just renamed the 1.0.0 release version in JIRA to 0.16.0 and will
work on removing issues that are not necessary to be able to release
(others, please help). If we make miraculous progress with the 1.0.0
columnar format blockers (per discussion below), we can change this
back, but I think either way we should put ourselves on a critical
path to have an RC cut by Friday January 24. Does that seem doable?

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:25 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
> put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
> I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
> January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
> get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's
> release 1.0.0 sooner.
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
> <ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we cast
> > aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of enumerating
> > what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can get it
> > done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a 0.17
> > release.
> >
> > I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
> > "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release to 10
> > issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this is an
> > exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> > not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we have
> > consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
> >
> > Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this point?
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Neal
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out with
> > > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Jacques,
> > > >
> > > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Liya Fan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to
> > > > try
> > > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think are top
> > > of
> > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility
> > > changes
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release
> > > for a
> > > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in
> > > > trying
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start
> > > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our
> > > next
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so
> > > > we're
> > > > > > due
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
> > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient
> > > > > > history,
> > > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for
> > > > 1.0,
> > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure
> > > > that
> > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we must
> > > resolve
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> > > already.
> > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of
> > > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and
> > > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for
> > > making
> > > > a
> > > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>]

We absolutely should have a list of exactly what needs to be done to
put out the 1.0.0 release, but based on what we know needs to be done
I am not optimistic that it can all be accomplished before the end of
January. That doesn't mean that we should assume these things won't
get done before March/April time frame. If they get done sooner, let's
release 1.0.0 sooner.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:03 PM Neal Richardson
<ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we cast
> aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of enumerating
> what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can get it
> done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a 0.17
> release.
>
> I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
> "blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release to 10
> issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this is an
> exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
> not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we have
> consensus that we're ready for 1.0?
>
> Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this point?
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone
>
> Thanks,
> Neal
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out with
> > getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jacques,
> > >
> > > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Liya Fan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > > >
> > > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to
> > > try
> > > > > to resolve them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Liya Fan
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think are top
> > of
> > > > > mind
> > > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility
> > changes
> > > > in
> > > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I
> > > don't
> > > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release
> > for a
> > > > > > ticket.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in
> > > trying
> > > > > to
> > > > > > resolve?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start
> > > > mobilizing
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our
> > next
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so
> > > we're
> > > > > due
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
> > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient
> > > > > history,
> > > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for
> > > 1.0,
> > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure
> > > that
> > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we must
> > resolve
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> > already.
> > > > > There
> > > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of
> > > > > expertise
> > > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and
> > > > prioritized
> > > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for
> > making
> > > a
> > > > > 1.0
> > > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Neal
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > [3]:
> > > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Neal Richardson <ne...@gmail.com>]

I'm all for maintaining a regular cadence of releases, but before we cast
aside the idea of 1.0, I'd still encourage us to do the work of enumerating
what truly must happen before we call a release 1.0 so that we can get it
done. Otherwise, in April we're going to be talking about doing a 0.17
release.

I believe I've found the issues that Wes referenced and added them as
"blockers" to 1.0.0. That brings the total blocker count listed on
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release to 10
issues, though some may be overlapping/redundant. Do we think this is an
exhaustive list of blockers? Should some of these be downgraded to
not-blocking? If we were to resolve all 10 of these issues, would we have
consensus that we're ready for 1.0?

Would it help to update this wiki, which seems pretty stale at this point?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Columnar+Format+1.0+Milestone

Thanks,
Neal


On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out with
> getting the Java side ready for 1.0.
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jacques,
> >
> > ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> > Thanks a lot for the information.
> >
> > Best,
> > Liya Fan
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> > >
> > > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >   Hi Jacques,
> > > >
> > > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to
> > try
> > > > to resolve them.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Liya Fan
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think are top
> of
> > > > mind
> > > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility
> changes
> > > in
> > > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I
> > don't
> > > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release
> for a
> > > > > ticket.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > > >
> > > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in
> > trying
> > > > to
> > > > > resolve?
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > Jacques
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start
> > > mobilizing
> > > > > for
> > > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our
> next
> > > > > release
> > > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so
> > we're
> > > > due
> > > > > to
> > > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
> > > > > recently
> > > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient
> > > > history,
> > > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for
> > 1.0,
> > > > > let's
> > > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure
> > that
> > > > > we've
> > > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we must
> resolve
> > > > > before
> > > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release
> already.
> > > > There
> > > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those
> > > > should
> > > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of
> > > > expertise
> > > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and
> > > prioritized
> > > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for
> making
> > a
> > > > 1.0
> > > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Neal
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [2]:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > [3]:
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > > [4]:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Bryan Cutler <cu...@gmail.com>]

I agree on a 0.16.0 release. In the meantime I'll try to help out with
getting the Java side ready for 1.0.

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:21 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jacques,
>
> ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
> Thanks a lot for the information.
>
> Best,
> Liya Fan
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
> >
> > Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >   Hi Jacques,
> > >
> > > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to
> try
> > > to resolve them.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Liya Fan
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of
> > > mind
> > > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility changes
> > in
> > > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I
> don't
> > > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release for a
> > > > ticket.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > > >
> > > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in
> trying
> > > to
> > > > resolve?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > Jacques
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start
> > mobilizing
> > > > for
> > > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next
> > > > release
> > > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so
> we're
> > > due
> > > > to
> > > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
> > > > recently
> > > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient
> > > history,
> > > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for
> 1.0,
> > > > let's
> > > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure
> that
> > > > we've
> > > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we must resolve
> > > > before
> > > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release already.
> > > There
> > > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those
> > > should
> > > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of
> > > expertise
> > > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and
> > prioritized
> > > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for making
> a
> > > 1.0
> > > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neal
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > >
> > > > > [2]:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > > [3]:
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > > [4]:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>]

Hi Jacques,

ARROW-4526 is interesting. I would like to try to resolve it.
Thanks a lot for the information.

Best,
Liya Fan


On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:

> The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.
>
> Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >   Hi Jacques,
> >
> > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to try
> > to resolve them.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Liya Fan
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of
> > mind
> > > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility changes
> in
> > > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I don't
> > > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release for a
> > > ticket.
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> > >
> > > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in trying
> > to
> > > resolve?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Jacques
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start
> mobilizing
> > > for
> > > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next
> > > release
> > > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so we're
> > due
> > > to
> > > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
> > > recently
> > > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient
> > history,
> > > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > > >
> > > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for 1.0,
> > > let's
> > > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure that
> > > we've
> > > > identified all format/specification issues we think we must resolve
> > > before
> > > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release already.
> > There
> > > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those
> > should
> > > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > > >
> > > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of
> > expertise
> > > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and
> prioritized
> > > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for making a
> > 1.0
> > > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > > >
> > > > Neal
> > > >
> > > > [1]:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > >
> > > > [2]:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > > [3]:
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > > [4]:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>]

The third ticket I was commenting on was ARROW-4526.

Fan, do you want to take a shot at that one?

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>   Hi Jacques,
>
> I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to try
> to resolve them.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Liya Fan
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of
> mind
> > and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility changes in
> > the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I don't
> > exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release for a
> > ticket.
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> >
> > For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in trying
> to
> > resolve?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start mobilizing
> > for
> > > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next
> > release
> > > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so we're
> due
> > to
> > > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
> > recently
> > > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient
> history,
> > > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> > >
> > > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for 1.0,
> > let's
> > > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure that
> > we've
> > > identified all format/specification issues we think we must resolve
> > before
> > > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release already.
> There
> > > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those
> should
> > > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> > >
> > > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of
> expertise
> > > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and prioritized
> > > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for making a
> 1.0
> > > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> > >
> > > Neal
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > >
> > > [2]:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > > [3]:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > > [4]:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> > >
> >
>

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Krisztián Szűcs <sz...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

IMO we should focus on the 1.0 release while maintaining the
recently stabilized ~3 month release period:

0.12.0: 2019-01-20
0.13.0: 2019-04-01
0.14.0: 2019-07-04
0.15.0: 2019-10-05

So a 0.16.0 release sounds much more realistic to me at the
end of the next week or the week after.

Perhaps we could narrow the release period to ~2 months, to
re-evalute the blocking issues, and provide updates more
frequently.

- Krisztian

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 1:57 PM Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
>
>
> IIRC we would also need Java implementations of LargeList and
> LargeString, though of course that requires the involvement of
> interested Java contributors.
>
> Given all this, I think we can go with a 0.16.0 major release soon.
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> Le 04/01/2020 à 11:16, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Unless I’m mistaken we have a number of format implementation completeness
> > deficits that would make it hard to do a 1.0 release until they are taken
> > care of
> >
> > * Null type
> > * Union types
> > * Dictionary deltas and replacements
> >
> > (Anything else?)
> >
> > Note on this last item, the integration test JSON format is deficient for
> > describing dictionary deltas and replacements.
> >
> > Short of completing these issues in the next 2 weeks I would strongly
> > suggest a 0.16.0 major release without delay.
> >
> > Thanks

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org>]

IIRC we would also need Java implementations of LargeList and
LargeString, though of course that requires the involvement of
interested Java contributors.

Given all this, I think we can go with a 0.16.0 major release soon.

Regards

Antoine.


Le 04/01/2020 à 11:16, Wes McKinney a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> Unless I’m mistaken we have a number of format implementation completeness
> deficits that would make it hard to do a 1.0 release until they are taken
> care of
> 
> * Null type
> * Union types
> * Dictionary deltas and replacements
> 
> (Anything else?)
> 
> Note on this last item, the integration test JSON format is deficient for
> describing dictionary deltas and replacements.
> 
> Short of completing these issues in the next 2 weeks I would strongly
> suggest a 0.16.0 major release without delay.
> 
> Thanks

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Unless I’m mistaken we have a number of format implementation completeness
deficits that would make it hard to do a 1.0 release until they are taken
care of

* Null type
* Union types
* Dictionary deltas and replacements

(Anything else?)

Note on this last item, the integration test JSON format is deficient for
describing dictionary deltas and replacements.

Short of completing these issues in the next 2 weeks I would strongly
suggest a 0.16.0 major release without delay.

Thanks

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 5:30 AM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am sorry. I did not notice the issues have already been assigned.
>
> Best,
> Liya Fan
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 12:15 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >   Hi Jacques,
> >
> > I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to try
> > to resolve them.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Liya Fan
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of
> mind
> >> and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility changes in
> >> the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I don't
> >> exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release for a
> >> ticket.
> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
> >>
> >> For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in trying
> to
> >> resolve?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> >> neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi all,
> >> > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start
> mobilizing
> >> for
> >> > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next
> >> release
> >> > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so we're
> >> due to
> >> > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
> >> recently
> >> > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient
> history,
> >> > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> >> >
> >> > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for 1.0,
> >> let's
> >> > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure that
> >> we've
> >> > identified all format/specification issues we think we must resolve
> >> before
> >> > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release already.
> There
> >> > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those
> should
> >> > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> >> >
> >> > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of
> expertise
> >> > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and prioritized
> >> > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for making a
> 1.0
> >> > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> >> >
> >> > Neal
> >> >
> >> > [1]:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> >> >
> >> > [2]:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> >> > [3]:
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> >> > [4]:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>]

I am sorry. I did not notice the issues have already been assigned.

Best,
Liya Fan

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 12:15 PM Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>   Hi Jacques,
>
> I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to try
> to resolve them.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Liya Fan
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of mind
>> and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility changes in
>> the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I don't
>> exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release for a
>> ticket.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
>>
>> For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in trying to
>> resolve?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
>> neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start mobilizing
>> for
>> > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next
>> release
>> > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so we're
>> due to
>> > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
>> recently
>> > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient history,
>> > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
>> >
>> > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for 1.0,
>> let's
>> > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure that
>> we've
>> > identified all format/specification issues we think we must resolve
>> before
>> > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release already. There
>> > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those should
>> > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
>> >
>> > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of expertise
>> > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and prioritized
>> > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for making a 1.0
>> > release, we can work together on burning those down.
>> >
>> > Neal
>> >
>> > [1]:
>> >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
>> >
>> > [2]:
>> >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
>> > [3]:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
>> > [4]:
>> >
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
>> >
>>
>

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Fan Liya <li...@gmail.com>]

  Hi Jacques,

I am interested in the issues, and if it is possible, I would like to try
to resolve them.

Thanks.

Liya Fan

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 7:16 AM Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:

> I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of mind
> and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility changes in
> the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I don't
> exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release for a
> ticket.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0
>
> For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in trying to
> resolve?
>
> thanks,
> Jacques
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> neal.p.richardson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start mobilizing
> for
> > the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next
> release
> > should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so we're due
> to
> > release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most
> recently
> > discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient history,
> > see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
> >
> > Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for 1.0,
> let's
> > discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure that
> we've
> > identified all format/specification issues we think we must resolve
> before
> > declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release already. There
> > are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those should
> > also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
> >
> > It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of expertise
> > and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and prioritized
> > appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for making a 1.0
> > release, we can work together on burning those down.
> >
> > Neal
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> >
> > [2]:
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> > [3]:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> > [4]:
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
> >
>

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Ji Liu <ni...@aliyun.com.INVALID>]

Hi, Jacques Nadeau
I only found two tickets[1][2], and I am interested in these issues. If you don't mind, I would like to take a close watch and try to resolve later.

Thanks,
Ji Liu

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7494
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495


------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
Send Time:2020年1月4日(星期六) 07:16
To:dev <de...@arrow.apache.org>
Subject:Re: Looking to 1.0

I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of mind
and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility changes in
the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I don't
exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release for a
ticket.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0

For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in trying to
resolve?

thanks,
Jacques



On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <ne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
> Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start mobilizing for
> the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next release
> should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so we're due to
> release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most recently
> discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient history,
> see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
>
> Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for 1.0, let's
> discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure that we've
> identified all format/specification issues we think we must resolve before
> declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release already. There
> are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those should
> also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
>
> It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of expertise
> and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and prioritized
> appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for making a 1.0
> release, we can work together on burning those down.
>
> Neal
>
> [1]:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
>
> [2]:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> [3]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> [4]:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
>

Re: Looking to 1.0

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>]

I identified three things in the java library that I think are top of mind
and should be fixed before 1.0 to avoid weird incompatibility changes in
the java apis (technical debt). I've tagged them as pre-1.0 as I don't
exactly see what is the right way to tag/label a target release for a
ticket.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-7495?jql=labels%20%3D%20pre-1.0

For the three tickets I identified, does anyone have interest in trying to
resolve?

thanks,
Jacques



On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:55 AM Neal Richardson <ne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
> Happy new year! As we look ahead to 2020, it's time to start mobilizing for
> the Arrow 1.0 release. At 0.15, I believe we decided that our next release
> should be 1.0, and it's been a couple of months since 0.15, so we're due to
> release again this month, give or take. (See [1] for when we most recently
> discussed doing 1.0 back in June, or if you're a fan of ancient history,
> see [2] for a similar discussion from July 2017.)
>
> Since there appeared to be consensus before that it is time for 1.0, let's
> discuss how to get it done. One first step would be to make sure that we've
> identified all format/specification issues we think we must resolve before
> declaring 1.0. [3] shows 3 "blockers" for the 1.0 release already. There
> are an additional 14 "Format" issues ([4]); perhaps some of those should
> also be labeled blockers for 1.0.
>
> It would be great if folks could review Jira in their areas of expertise
> and make sure everything essential for 1.0 is ticketed and prioritized
> appropriately. Once we've identified the required tasks for making a 1.0
> release, we can work together on burning those down.
>
> Neal
>
> [1]:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44a7a3d256ab5dbd62da6fe45b56951b435697426bf4adedb6520907@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
>
> [2]:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0aca401e8906e1adbb37228b38569a9a7736b864da854007dad111c3%40%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> [3]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ARROW/Arrow+1.0.0+Release
> [4]:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20ARROW%20AND%20status%20in%20(%22In%20Review%22%2C%20Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20component%20%3D%20Format
>