You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to github@arrow.apache.org by GitBox <gi...@apache.org> on 2021/05/01 15:37:37 UTC
[GitHub] [arrow-datafusion] andygrove opened a new issue #234: Consider publishing crate as arrow-datafusion
andygrove opened a new issue #234:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/234
**Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge? Please describe what you are trying to do.**
This is probably a bad idea but we can at least document that we considered this :slightly_smiling_face:
We are already at version 4.0.0 for the `datafusion` crate, and really that version number does not represent the maturity of the product.
Now that we have moved to a new repo, we could consider publishing a new `arrow-datafusion` crate and deprecate the existing `datafusion` crate. This would give us the opportunity to start again with version numbers and reset expectations.
**Describe the solution you'd like**
See above.
**Describe alternatives you've considered**
The alternative is to not do this and release 5.0.0 the next time we change an API.
**Additional context**
None.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [arrow-datafusion] alamb commented on issue #234: Consider publishing crate as arrow-datafusion
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
alamb commented on issue #234:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/234#issuecomment-830870672
I honestly don't have a strong opinion and can with whatever versioning
scheme. If I am left to my own devices, I would likely keep on the current
versioning scheme
On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 2:13 PM Jorge Leitao ***@***.***>
wrote:
> IMO it is more important to have a version that correctly represents the
> state of the software than datafusion in cargo.
>
> IMO 0.X is the correct state of the software, both from a security point
> of view and if we plan to integrate Ballista more closely with DataFusion.
>
> I find it odd that the vast majority of the software in Rust is pre-1, but
> arrow, parquet, DataFusion, etc, is post-1 (and all of them with an API
> that is essentially unstable). IMO that is an historical artifact, and we
> rather correct it sooner than later.
>
> The perception of 3.0 in Rust is that the software had a significant
> maturation time.
>
> From a users' perspective, the switch is a very low effort and I do think
> that we have the necessary channels to market any change (mailing, slack,
> github, cargo.io, etc).
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/234#issuecomment-830849093>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADXZMLGPGJKCHQXCTOGKUDTLWI23ANCNFSM436N3ARA>
> .
>
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [arrow-datafusion] alamb commented on issue #234: Consider publishing crate as arrow-datafusion
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
alamb commented on issue #234:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/234#issuecomment-830677355
@andygrove I personally think we should not confuse things by adding a new crate name. Once we get the arrow-rs versions releasing more regularly then I think we should start releasing datafausion on whatever cadence makes sense for it
I think people can draw their own conclusion of its maturity based on the number / frequency of major releases
Other than marketing / appearance of maturity, I don't think there is any technical difference between publishing datafusion major versions and pre 1.0 versions 0.1, 0.2, etc.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [arrow-datafusion] andygrove commented on issue #234: Consider publishing crate as arrow-datafusion
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
andygrove commented on issue #234:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/234#issuecomment-912621859
I personally think it is too late to consider this now. If anyone objects then feel free to re-open or create a new issue.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [arrow-datafusion] andygrove closed issue #234: Consider publishing crate as arrow-datafusion
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
andygrove closed issue #234:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/234
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [arrow-datafusion] andygrove closed issue #234: Consider publishing crate as arrow-datafusion
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
andygrove closed issue #234:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/234
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [arrow-datafusion] jorgecarleitao commented on issue #234: Consider publishing crate as arrow-datafusion
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
jorgecarleitao commented on issue #234:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/234#issuecomment-830849093
IMO it is more important to have a version that correctly represents the state of the software than `datafusion` in cargo.
IMO 0.X is the correct state of the software, both from a security point of view and if we plan to integrate Ballista more closely with DataFusion.
I find it odd that the vast majority of the software in Rust is pre-1, but arrow, parquet, DataFusion, etc, is post-1 (and all of them with an API that is essentially unstable). IMO that is an historical artifact, and we rather correct it sooner than later.
The perception of 3.0 in Rust is that the software had a significant maturation time.
From a users' perspective, the switch is a very low effort and I do think that we have the necessary channels to market any change (mailing, slack, github, cargo.io, etc).
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [arrow-datafusion] andygrove commented on issue #234: Consider publishing crate as arrow-datafusion
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
andygrove commented on issue #234:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/issues/234#issuecomment-830651442
@alamb @jorgecarleitao It would be good to get your opinion on this
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org