Skip to content

GH-49227: [Python] Deprecate pyarrow.gandiva#49637

Open
AlenkaF wants to merge 4 commits intoapache:mainfrom
AlenkaF:gh-49227-deprecate-pyarrow-gandiva
Open

GH-49227: [Python] Deprecate pyarrow.gandiva#49637
AlenkaF wants to merge 4 commits intoapache:mainfrom
AlenkaF:gh-49227-deprecate-pyarrow-gandiva

Conversation

@AlenkaF
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@AlenkaF AlenkaF commented Apr 1, 2026

Rationale for this change

See: #49227 (comment)

What changes are included in this PR?

Deprecation warnings for pyarrow.gandiva added for version 24.0.0

Are these changes tested?

Yes, tested locally that warnings are raised on import. CI tests verify the warnings are filtered in out test suite.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes, pyarrow.gandiva is deprecated and will be removed in a feature PyArrow version.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@raulcd raulcd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@pitrou what are your thoughts here? Should we merge this as part of 24.0.0 given no response to the ML or should we push it to 25.0.0 and "give time" to users? Maybe we should bump the ML thread and potentially share in user@arrow.apache.org before merging?

@github-actions github-actions bot added awaiting changes Awaiting changes and removed awaiting review Awaiting review labels Apr 1, 2026
@AlenkaF
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

AlenkaF commented Apr 1, 2026

Well, there really is no need to rush, so I would agree with waiting till 25.0.0 and adding more attention to the ML thread before merging. (Edit: sorry, I am sure Antoine has not been tagged when I was first reading this =) )

@pitrou
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

pitrou commented Apr 1, 2026

This is a deprecation, so we want this to be merged for 24.0.0. Waiting for another version wouldn't do any good, as people would not be informed before the deprecation appears.

@raulcd
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

raulcd commented Apr 1, 2026

Waiting for another version wouldn't do any good, as people would not be informed before the deprecation appears.

Well, it depends. I was asking because I was thinking whether we want to bump the ML thread to give more visibility for any concern from users before deprecating. If we have decided, thanks to lazy consensus, that we are deprecating, then, yes I do agree we should merge it for 24.0.0.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@raulcd raulcd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Based on the discussion on the issue and the ML. I agree we seem to be in agreement and no-one answered the ML. So by the power of lazy consensus I approve :)

@pitrou
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

pitrou commented Apr 1, 2026

We can always undo the deprecation later, so there is really no downside to doing this in 24.0.0 IMHO.

@github-actions github-actions bot added awaiting merge Awaiting merge and removed awaiting changes Awaiting changes labels Apr 1, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants