Skip to content

Conversation

@manseaume
Copy link

No description provided.

@manseaume manseaume requested a review from scampi October 27, 2020 17:04
Copy link

@scampi scampi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

PR title mentions bump but the PR does more than this.

Are the changes to the imports because of this bump, or are the fixes to a pre-existing bug ? If the latter, then a separate PR should be opened so that the fix can be applied elsewhere.

package org.apache.arrow.vector;

import io.netty.buffer.ArrowBuf;
import siren.io.netty.buffer.ArrowBuf;
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does that mean we weren't always using the custom changes of netty we did ?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, for vector, but this was fixed after this release 0.8.0

<unsubscribe>dev-unsubscribe@arrow.apache.org</unsubscribe>
<post>dev@arrow.apache.org</post>
<archive>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/arrow-dev/</archive>
<archive>https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/arrow-dev/</archive>
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why is that needed ?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You're right, this is not needed, event if the good url is with the https. Shall I revert ?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's better to leave it as it is originally, this way we have less changes.

@manseaume
Copy link
Author

PR title mentions bump but the PR does more than this.

Are the changes to the imports because of this bump, or are the fixes to a pre-existing bug ? If the latter, then a separate PR should be opened so that the fix can be applied elsewhere.

You're right, the PR should probably be renamed. For what I could see, the release 0.8.0 was not a "ready to use" project (even if good for third parties of course), it was not compiling as is when going to snapshot due to package rename (via shade plugin). This was fixed after this release, so nothing to report to master branch.
It's not very clear, but I created two commits: the first with the changes to have a development branch starting from 0.8.0, and a second with the bump to netty version.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants