Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Moving Apache Parquet C++ development process to a monorepo structure with Apache Arrow C++

[Julien Le Dem <ju...@wework.com.INVALID>]

What does archiving the master branch look like? Are we renaming master and
leaving a readme pointing to the new repo?


On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:30 PM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK. There is still some code (examples, CLI tools) that needs to be
> moved over. Once that's done and all the outstanding PRs are
> moved/closed, I will do that
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:45 AM Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Wes,
> >
> > I'm definitely +1 on archiving the master branch. I'm not sure what you
> mean exactly with this. I would have simply added a final commit that
> deletes all code and adds a message to the README that the repository has
> moved into a another repo.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Uwe
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Wes McKinney wrote:
> > > hi folks,
> > >
> > > Could I get some feedback about the follow-up items? There are still
> > > some parts of the codebase that need to be migrated. Additionally, I'm
> > > proposing to archive the master branch so that people with build
> > > toolchains running against parquet-cpp master will be forced to
> > > migrate. The hard part is over; I would like to get things closed out
> > > on apache/parquet-cpp and move development forward.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Wes
> > > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 8:45 PM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Might make sense to archive the master branch so that people's
> > > > now-outdated build toolchains (where they may be cloning
> > > > apache/parquet-cpp) will fail fast. We are already starting to get
> bug
> > > > reports along these lines.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 10:43 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We should probably also write a blog post on the Apache Arrow
> website
> > > > > to increase visibility of this move to the broader community.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 10:42 AM Wes McKinney <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear all -- the merge has been completed, thank you! 318 patches
> > > > > > (after the filter-branch grafting procedure) were merged to
> > > > > > apache/arrow
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have some follow up work to do:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Move patches from apache/parquet-cpp to apache/arrow
> > > > > > * Add CONTRIBUTING.md and note to README that patches are no
> longer
> > > > > > accepted at the old location
> > > > > > * Migrate CLI utiltiies and other small items that did not
> survive the
> > > > > > merge: tools/, benchmarks/, and examples/
> > > > > > * Develop new release procedure for Apache Parquet
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On this third point, we can also import their git history if
> desired.
> > > > > > Incorporating them into the build will be comparatively easy to
> the
> > > > > > library integration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are already some JIRA issues open for some of these, but
> > > > > > anything else please create issues so we can keep track.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm already quite excited to get busy with some refactoring and
> > > > > > internals improvements that I had avoided because of the painful
> > > > > > development procedure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Wes
>

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Moving Apache Parquet C++ development process to a monorepo structure with Apache Arrow C++

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

That is fine with me.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:32 AM Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, at 1:05 AM, Julien Le Dem wrote:
> > What does archiving the master branch look like? Are we renaming master and
> > leaving a readme pointing to the new repo?
>
> That would be my preferred option. Any objections?

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Moving Apache Parquet C++ development process to a monorepo structure with Apache Arrow C++

["Uwe L. Korn" <uw...@xhochy.com>]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, at 1:05 AM, Julien Le Dem wrote:
> What does archiving the master branch look like? Are we renaming master and
> leaving a readme pointing to the new repo?

That would be my preferred option. Any objections?