osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Discuss] Monorepo vs. independent repositories for independent implementations


I see. This isn't a supported use case for the project -- we expect
third parties to use released source or binary artifacts.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:24 PM Francois Saint-Jacques
<fsaintjacques@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Not the nesting, but pulling a lot of unused files.
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:39 PM Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Why would one level of directory nesting cause awkwardness (curious)?
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 12:28 PM Francois Saint-Jacques <
> > fsaintjacques@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> One point toward seperate repositories, vendoring Arrow for C++ project
> >> with git submodules becomes awkward if it's a multi-lang monorepo.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:22 PM Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I would also add -- Krisztian's recent work Dockerizing the project is
> >> > setting us up to be able to decouple ourselves from Travis CI. We need
> >> > build hosts where we can use Docker to be able to do this, though.
> >> > Preferably the build hosts would have NVIDIA GPUs so we can use
> >> > nvidia-docker to test our GPU functionality
> >> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:09 PM Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > hi Antoine,
> >> > >
> >> > > Some small critiques to the listing of implementations:
> >> > >
> >> > > * The Java library predates the C++ library (it originated in Apache
> >> > Drill)
> >> > > * Python and C++ both interact with the Java library in different
> >> > > ways. There's JNI for Gandiva and Plasma, and Python uses Java via
> >> > > JPype in unit tests
> >> > >
> >> > > There's some critical questions to answer here:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Is there such a thing as an "independent implementation"?
> >> > > 2. What's the best way to manage changesets / patches?
> >> > > 3. What is the best way to manage the burgeoning complexity of testing
> >> > > and verification of the entire project?
> >> > > 4. How much longer will public CI services be adequate for our needs?
> >> > >
> >> > > This may be a bit long winded so bear with me
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Is there such a thing as an "independent implementation"?
> >> > >
> >> > > My answer to this is actually "not really". The reasons are as
> >> follows:
> >> > >
> >> > > * The integration tests are one of the most important parts of the
> >> > > project. While C++, Java, and JavaScript are the only participants, we
> >> > > eventually need Rust, Go, and C# to be in the matrix. This will
> >> > > include integration testing for RPC / Flight in addition to the
> >> > > current IPC tests.
> >> > > * By the nature of Arrow, any implementation may build in-memory or
> >> > > RPC-based bindings to computational libraries that are in C++ or use
> >> > > LLVM, such as Gandiva and Plasma. This is already the case in Java,
> >> > > and may expand beyond Java. I could see Go or Rust or C# using Gandiva
> >> > > or Plasma. The scope of what kinds of shared infrastructure might be
> >> > > used in multiple languages will only expand over time
> >> > >
> >> > > 2. What's the best way to manage changesets / patches?
> >> > >
> >> > > * Because no two implementations can be guaranteed to be independent,
> >> > > in a non-monorepo setup, changes may require multiple patches.
> >> > > Verifying "joint patches" is likely to require manual / human
> >> > > intervention in ways that are a non-issue for a monorepo
> >> > > * Splitting development up into multiple repositories will decrease
> >> > > visibility into the patch queues in the less active subprojects. I'm
> >> > > strongly in support not only of a single codebase but a single patch
> >> > > queue. I admit that seeing ~70 open pull requests on Arrow stresses me
> >> > > out a bit, but having 70 patches spread across 5 repos would be more
> >> > > stressful for me at least
> >> > > * Broken builds in any part of the project should be a concern to the
> >> > > entire community -- we should not have broken builds. I'd be concerned
> >> > > about having any part of the project becoming a "ghetto" if the
> >> > > plurality of developers are working elsewhere with an "out of sight,
> >> > > out of mind" mindset
> >> > >
> >> > > To play devil's advocate, some web applications could be developed to
> >> > > create the appearance of a unified patch queue across many repos.
> >> > >
> >> > > That being said, our patch queue pales in comparison to some larger /
> >> > > more mature ASF projects:
> >> > >
> >> > > * Spark has 523 open PRs: https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls
> >> > > * Airflow has 218 open PRs:
> >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pulls
> >> > > * Hadoop 195 open PRs: https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pulls
> >> > >
> >> > > 3. What is the best way to manage the burgeoning complexity of testing
> >> > > and verification of the entire project?
> >> > > 4. How much longer will public CI services be adequate for our needs?
> >> > >
> >> > > I think we are already reaching the limits of what we can reasonably
> >> > > accomplish with public CI services. Apache Arrow is a project with
> >> > > sophistication and scope that is destined to outgrow what Travis CI
> >> > > can provide within the scope of a single implementation, i.e.
> >> > > C++/Python. For example, we're going to be past the 50 minute time
> >> > > limit before too long. I think that continuing to constrain ourselves
> >> > > by the 50 minute time limit will also limit the scope of what kinds of
> >> > > automated testing we can employ, to our long term detriment. We also
> >> > > have things (like GPU support) that we cannot test there.
> >> > >
> >> > > Considering more mature data projects in the ASF that I'm familiar
> >> > > with: Kudu, Impala, Spark: none of these projects use Travis CI. Their
> >> > > testing uses Jenkins build slaves and run much longer than our CI
> >> > > jobs. If we used beefier build slaves, our builds would also run much
> >> > > faster.
> >> > >
> >> > > So, what should we do? Well, part of why I have recently created an
> >> > > organization (https://ursalabs.org/) dedicated to Arrow development
> >> is
> >> > > to have the financial means and the engineering resources to actually
> >> > > do something about problems like these. I would propose to make an
> >> > > investment of hardware and engineering time to augment our ability to
> >> > > test the repository to make sure we can manage 5-10x the current test
> >> > > runtime that we have now. If I have to personally halt feature
> >> > > development and focus on build and development tooling for a while, so
> >> > > be it. We've already spent many months this year on packaging
> >> > > automation but we are still coming up short in development tooling. If
> >> > > anyone reading has funds to invest in hardware resources, please let
> >> > > me know.
> >> > >
> >> > > As Clint Eastwood's character said in "The Good, The Bad, and The
> >> > > Ugly", "$200,000 is a lot of money. We're gonna have to earn it."
> >> > >
> >> > > FWIW: I am not sure Parquet is a good example of a better way to be.
> >> > > Parquet lacks automated integration tests (terrifying to me) and
> >> > > failed to grow a community outside of the Java world until 2016 when a
> >> > > few of us started building out the C++ library.
> >> > >
> >> > > - Wes
> >> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 1:02 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hello,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We are quickly growing the number of Arrow implementations.  Soon
> >> we'll
> >> > > > have:
> >> > > > - C++: the most mature, reference, and historical implementation
> >> > > > - Python: linked with Arrow C++
> >> > > > - C/GLib: linked with Arrow C++
> >> > > > - Ruby: linked with Arrow C++ (indirectly through C/GLib)
> >> > > > - R: linked with Arrow C++
> >> > > > - Matlab: linked with Arrow C++
> >> > > > - Java: independent implementation
> >> > > > - Rust: independent implementation
> >> > > > - Go: independent implementation
> >> > > > - Javascript: independent implementation
> >> > > > - .Net (C#): independent implementation
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This creates various kinds of issues.  Technical issues such as CI
> >> > > > matrices being more and more large and complex.  Social issues such
> >> as
> >> > > > different implementations having different development speeds and
> >> > > > maturity, and the fact that development teams are effectively
> >> disjoint
> >> > > > (for example, whoever develops on the C++ codebase usually doesn't
> >> > > > develop on the Rust codebase, and vice-versa).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm not proposing anything concrete here, but would like to ask what
> >> > > > people think of moving independent implementations (those that don't
> >> > > > depend on Arrow C++) into independent repositories.  This would let
> >> > them
> >> > > > define their own workflow, permissions, teams, CI configurations and
> >> > > > whatnot.  This would also allow growing the CI matrix for the main
> >> repo
> >> > > > without reaching humongous sizes.  The implementations would still
> >> be
> >> > > > under the umbrella of the Apache Arrow project; but they would
> >> exist as
> >> > > > independent GitHub projects (this is a bit how Parquet
> >> implementations
> >> > > > are handled, AFAIK).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > To start with, Wes expressed opposition to the idea:
> >> > > > """
> >> > > > I am against breaking up the monorepo -- I think that we should
> >> scale
> >> > > > our process using tools that we develop rather than conforming to
> >> the
> >> > > > objectively crude affordances of Travis CI and Appveyor.
> >> > Implementations
> >> > > > that are independent now may not be so in the future by the nature
> >> of
> >> > > > the project -- any implementation could integrate with Gandiva, for
> >> > > > example, and that would become much more difficult to develop if the
> >> > > > code is fragmented in multiple repositories.
> >> > > > """
> >> > > >
> >> > > > (https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/2765#issuecomment-430224701)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Antoine.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my jetpack.
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my jetpack.