Add notice on mainenance bandwidth to readme

[alamb]

Closes https://github.com/jorgecarleitao/arrow2/issues/1429

This PR clarifies for current and potential future users that the current maintenance bandwidth for this crate is very limited. Related to @tustvold 's proposal on https://github.com/jorgecarleitao/arrow2/pull/1464

I also hope it might encourage other current users of arrow2 to offer to help maintain the crate if that is valuable to them.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: +0.01 :tada:

Comparison is base (07fd3f6) 83.70% compared to head (e7b55fd) 83.72%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1476 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 83.70% 83.72% +0.01% ========================================== Files 389 389 Lines 41775 41775 ========================================== + Hits 34969 34975 +6 + Misses 6806 6800 -6 ``` [see 3 files with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/jorgecarleitao/arrow2/pull/1476/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Jorge+Leitao)

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ritchie46]

Hey Andrew. Thanks for the PR. I think I can find myself more in this. I am / Polars is willing to maintain arrow2 as it is a huge dependency for us. If we can work out a way to get the API working on arrow-rs, I might consider a switch, but the capacity is not here at the moment.

I think you can mention that development here is slower paced than on arrow-rs. I am definitely willing to fix bugs as I encounter them though. I think that only the development of new features is rather stalled.

[alamb]

Hey Andrew. Thanks for the PR. I think I can find myself more in this. I am / Polars is willing to maintain arrow2 as it is a huge dependency for us.

I see -- I didn't realize you planned to maintain arrow2. If that is the case then such a maintenance notice may not necessary. 🤔

I think you can mention that development here is slower paced than on arrow-rs. I am definitely willing to fix bugs as I encounter them though. I think that only the development of new features is rather stalled.

I took at shot at updating the wording -- given my position and effort on arrow-rs I don't think it would be appropriate for me to offer opinions on the relative speed of the repositories in arrow2 so I just said "had more maintenance capacity" which seemed less potentially negative.

Given I don't really know what your plans are maybe we should just close this PR as not helpful.

[ritchie46]

Given I don't really know what your plans are maybe we should just close this PR as not helpful.

Yes, I don't think it per se helps much. :) I will close this and reconsider it once/if we are further in the transition process. Let's wait out a bit.

[alamb]

It appears the maintenance status of arrow2 is still causing some confusion:

https://lists.apache.org/thread/184bg72yntrblo0cbnofmnzpx6m28thq

[ritchie46]

Yeap, it's on my stack. :)

[mnpw]

@ritchie46 I noticed the addition of nano-arrow crate to polars (https://github.com/pola-rs/polars/pull/11179). Does this mean that arrow2 will receive low maintenance bandwidth going forward? If so then perhaps we can re-open this PR and update the readme.

[alamb]

In case anyone else finds this issue:

I believe that pola-rs is vendoring (aka brought a snapshot of the arrow2 code into their codebase):

• arrow2 https://github.com/pola-rs/polars/pull/11179
• parquet2 https://github.com/pola-rs/polars/pull/12026

[ritchie46]

Yes, @alamb is correct, we started vendoring in polars and repelling anything we don't use. See our notice here: https://github.com/pola-rs/polars/pull/11179

[alamb]

Related discussion: https://github.com/jorgecarleitao/arrow2/issues/1429