{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/martindurant/filesystem_spec/issues/6","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/martindurant/filesystem_spec","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/martindurant/filesystem_spec/issues/6/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/martindurant/filesystem_spec/issues/6/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/martindurant/filesystem_spec/issues/6/events","html_url":"https://github.com/martindurant/filesystem_spec/issues/6","id":323223176,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUzMjMyMjMxNzY=","number":6,"title":"comments from arrow","user":{"login":"martindurant","id":6042212,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjYwNDIyMTI=","avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/6042212?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/martindurant","html_url":"https://github.com/martindurant","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martindurant/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martindurant/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martindurant/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martindurant/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martindurant/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martindurant/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martindurant/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martindurant/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martindurant/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2018-05-15T13:41:13Z","updated_at":"2018-07-06T18:54:50Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"OWNER","body":"@pitrou wrote the following on dev@arrow.apache.org\r\n\r\nHere are some comments:\r\n\r\n- API naming: you seem to favour re-using Unix command-line monickers in\r\n some places, while using more regular verbs or names in other\r\n places.  I think it should be consistent.  Since the Unix\r\n command-line doesn't exactly cover the exposed functionality, and\r\n since Unix tends to favour short cryptic names, I think it's better\r\n to use Python-like naming (which is also more familiar to non-Unix\r\n users). For example \"move\" or \"rename\" or \"replace\" instead of \"mv\",\r\n etc.\r\n\r\n- **kwargs parameters: a couple APIs (`mkdir`, `put`...) allow passing\r\n arbitrary parameters, which I assume are intended to be\r\n backend-specific.  It makes it difficult to add other optional\r\n parameters to those APIs in the future.  So I'd make the\r\n backend-specific directives a single (optional) dict parameter rather\r\n than a **kwargs.\r\n\r\n- `invalidate_cache` doesn't state whether it invalidates recursively\r\n or not (recursively sounds better intuitively?).  Also, I think it\r\n would be more flexible to take a list of paths rather than a single\r\n path.\r\n\r\n- `du`: the effect of the `deep` parameter isn't obvious to me. I don't\r\n know what it would mean *not* to recurse here: what is the size of a\r\n directory if you don't recurse into it?\r\n\r\n- `glob` may need a formal definition (are trailing slashes\r\n significant for directory or symlink resolution? this kind of thing),\r\n though you may want to keep edge cases backend-specific.\r\n\r\n- are `head` and `tail` at all useful? They can be easily recreated\r\n using a generic `open` facility.\r\n\r\n- `read_block` tries to do too much in a single API IMHO, and\r\n using `open` directly is more flexible anyway.\r\n\r\n- if `touch` is intended to emulate the Unix API of the same name, the\r\n docstring should state \"Create empty file or update last modification\r\n timestamp\".\r\n\r\n- the information dicts returned by several APIs (`ls`, `info`....)\r\n need standardizing, at least for non backend-specific fields.\r\n\r\n- if the backend is a networked filesystem with non-trivial latency,\r\n perhaps the operations would deserve being batched (operate on\r\n several paths at once), though I will happily defer to your expertise\r\n on the topic."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/martindurant/filesystem_spec/issues/comments/403118782","html_url":"https://github.com/martindurant/filesystem_spec/issues/6#issuecomment-403118782","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/martindurant/filesystem_spec/issues/6","id":403118782,"node_id":"MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQwMzExODc4Mg==","user":{"login":"wesm","id":329591,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjMyOTU5MQ==","avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/329591?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/wesm","html_url":"https://github.com/wesm","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wesm/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wesm/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wesm/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wesm/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wesm/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wesm/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wesm/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wesm/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/wesm/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-07-06T18:54:50Z","updated_at":"2018-07-06T18:54:50Z","author_association":"NONE","body":"It would be just for the purposes of code review / line-by-line comments. So you could create an empty branch (say based on the repo's initial commit) and then make a PR from HEAD into the empty branch"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"wesm"}}