arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Understanding Arrow's CI problems and needs
Date Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:10:37 GMT
It seems some time has passed here. Would some others like to read the
document and comment? This is important stuff.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:20 PM Krisztián Szűcs
<szucs.krisztian@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The current document greatly summarizes the current situation, but in
> order to properly compare and eventually select a solution we need a
> a detailed list of explicit features with some sort of classification, like
> should/must have. For example our future CI system must support
> "PRs from forks". After filling this table for the alternatives we can
> have a much clearer picture.
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 4:06 PM Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I reviewed the document, thanks for putting it together! I think it
> > captures most of the requirements and the challenges that we are
> > currently facing. I think that anyone who is actively contributing to
> > the project or merging pull requests should read this document since
> > this affects all of us.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:55 PM Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Neal for starting this discussion. I will review and comment.
> > >
> > > I will say that as a maintainer the current situation is very nearly
> > > intolerable. As by far and away the most prolific merger-of-PRs [1],
> > > I've been negatively affected by the long queueing times and delayed
> > > feedback cycles. The project would not be able to accommodate 2x or 5x
> > > the volume of PRs that we have now, and so it is urgent that we
> > > develop a scalable cross-platform CI solution that is under this
> > > community's control and does not require a high maintenance burden, so
> > > if we need to increase the amount of resources dedicated to CI we can
> > > unilaterally do so.
> > >
> > > [1]: https://gist.github.com/wesm/78bfda4cef3b23a5193cf4fb8a6540fb
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:38 PM Neal Richardson
> > > <neal.p.richardson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > Over the last few months, I've seen a lot of frustration and
> > > > discussion around the shortcomings of our current CI. I'm also seeing
> > > > debate over a few possible solutions; unfortunately, the debates tend
> > > > not to resolve in a clear, decisive way, and we end up having the same
> > > > debates repeatedly.
> > > >
> > > > In my experience, this pattern often happens when there's not a shared
> > > > understanding of the problems we're trying to solve--it's hard to
> > > > agree on a solution if we don't agree on the problem. To help us reach
> > > > consensus on the problems, I've started a document:
> > > >
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fToW48TO-B9T8VRi0_Z30fDJkjOrBisc-Fr8Epl50s4/edit#
> > > >
> > > > Please have a look and add/edit freely. I've tried to capture the
> > > > arguments I've seen go by the mailing list, as well as some from my
> > > > own experience, but if I've mischaracterized anything, please rectify.
> > > >
> > > > I know several people have been exploring some potential solutions,
> > > > and I hope this document can help us begin to discuss their relative
> > > > merits more objectively and practically.
> > > >
> > > > Neal
> >

Mime
View raw message