Release arrow-rs / parquet version 52.0.0

[alamb]

Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge? Please describe what you are trying to do.
50.1.0 #5453 was released about 2 months ago: https://crates.io/crates/arrow/51.0.0 (March 18, 2024)

Describe the solution you'd like
A new release.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Additional context
Suggested content for the release:

• Rust Interval definition incorrect #5654
• feat: Make AsyncArrowWriter accepts AsyncFileWriter #5753
• Stateless prepared statements wrap DoPutPreparedStatementResult with Any which is differs from Go implementation #5731

[konjac]

Hi @tustvold, could we consider to prioritize this?

[alamb]

Maybe we can list what the release is waiting on. @tustvold mentioned at some point fixing #5654, but given how long that has been broken (1+ years) it might not be that critical to fix

Is there anything else we are waiting on to create the next release?

[alamb]

(I can handle the release mechanics when we decide it is time)

[tustvold]

I think #5654 and getting the various view arrays to a somewhat stable state, e.g. if we do decide to add a view abstraction or similar.

I intend to cut the release towards the end of May as a stepping stone to the 3 month breaking release cadence that people are asking for.

[alamb]

I see -- so perhaps we release 52 at the end of may and then target 52.1.0 in June and 52.2.0 in July and then 53.0.0 (next breaking API) release in August 🤔

[tustvold]

I'm loathe to commit to a rigid cadence, there isn't much point going through the rigmarole if not much has changed, but I think we can commit to the next breaking release afterwards being no earlier than August

[alamb]

I'm loathe to commit to a rigid cadence, there isn't much point going through the rigmarole if not much has changed, but I think we can commit to the next breaking release afterwards being no earlier than August

The reason to have a regular cadence is so that we don't hold up releasing things like bug fixes . I agree it is overhead on maintainers

[alamb]

I filed #5737 to try and document what the current thinking for releases is. Feedback welcome.

[Xuanwo]

Hi @alamb, I'd like to include #5753 in our release train for version 52.

[alamb]

Thanks @Xuanwo -- added to the list above. 🚋

[matthewmturner]

I think getting a resolution / fix on #5731 would be valuable for this release.

[alamb]

Added to the list @matthewmturner -- thank you

Are you driving the resolution on #5731 ?

[matthewmturner]

@alamb i am happy to, i will review and propose next steps

[tustvold]

Definitely not a necessity, but sorting out null handling for nested comparison is something that may need breaking changes and would therefore be something we may want to include in this release - #5426

I can try to find some time to look into this, I know I keep promising this, but it keeps getting ousted by more urgent things 😅