-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 824
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
48.0.1
arrow patch release
#5050
Comments
I believe @tustvold would prefer the "hold the datafusion release" approach @andygrove do you have a preference? I would be happy to help with either approach |
I am fine with delaying the DataFusion release. I would like to merge apache/datafusion#8072 first anyway (once I have verified that it fixes apache/datafusion#8069) |
I feel silly for having forgotten the possibility of a patch release. Also, by patch release, don't you mean If DataFusion waits, then downstream projects I know of won't use the patch release. So the only reason then is if there are other users who might care. I'm ambivalent at the moment, but I think in the future we could consider more immediately patch releases when we find sufficiently serious bugs. |
If it is just a bug fix that is a good point. |
I think the limiting factor here has always been maintainer bandwidth to make the releases |
48.1.0
arrow patch release48.1.0
arrow patch release
I believe that having a 48.0.1 patch release will be good for several reasons:
Therefore I plan to make a release candidate later today |
Since I am going to do |
Update here is I have prepared a branch and backported the relevant fixes (thanks @viirya for the quick reviews 🙏 ): https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/tree/48.0.0_maintenance I have also sent a note to the dev list: https://lists.apache.org/thread/r7bgll8zr2fgvob6mqyqfv7c99bbfb3p I plan to make a release candidate and start a vote thread later today. |
Thanks @alamb. Decoupling this from upgrading DF to use arrow 49 makes sense. There are quite a few changes. I am generally in favor of the patch release approach, but as you said, maintainer bandwidth is an issue. |
Thanks @alamb for working on the patch release. |
I have started a vote thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/4vbh1vd39vlty8ck3j3ddzrqxhd9ybm9 |
The release was approved and is available now on crates.io https://lists.apache.org/thread/s3h1q88xlc4mwx7fn5b6pnwytd15t6o8 |
|
|
|
Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge? Please describe what you are trying to do.
As noted by @wjones127 on the DataFusion 33 release thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/dwdk1yogq65d4vnfcjkjh02c9mbqmojp
There was a regression #5038 introduced in the
48.0.0
release related to parsing / serializing large integer values in JSONThe fix #5042 will be included in
49.0.0
. However, if we release software (like DataFusion 33.0.0) that depends on48.0.0
users will have no way to avoid the bug if they also upgradeDescribe the solution you'd like
I would like to consider doing a separate release
48.1.0
that includes the fix for the bugs aboveDescribe alternatives you've considered
We could alternately delay releasing DataFusion 33 until we have released arrow 49.0.0 and updated DataFusion to use that
Additional context
Release Checklist
48.0.0_maintenance
#506148.0.0
maintenance #506048.0.0_maintenance
#505948.0.1
and add README #5062The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: