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 Tue, 01 Oct 2019 18:55:54 GMT
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