Closed alamb closed 1 year ago
Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: +0.01
:tada:
Comparison is base (
07fd3f6
) 83.70% compared to head (e7b55fd
) 83.72%.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
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.
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.
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.
It appears the maintenance status of arrow2 is still causing some confusion:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/184bg72yntrblo0cbnofmnzpx6m28thq
Yeap, it's on my stack. :)
@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.
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):
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
Related discussion: https://github.com/jorgecarleitao/arrow2/issues/1429
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.