Description
@pandas-dev/pandas-core
At the development meeting on February 14, we agreed to take a vote on whether to remove the DeprecationWarning
about pyarrow
being required in version 2.2.1. We agreed that the decision about whether pyarrow
will still be required with version 3.0 is delayed.
Core team should vote below on one of these 2 options:
OPTION 1: Keep the DeprecationWarning
in Version 2.2.1
OPTION 2: Remove the DeprecationWarning
in Version 2.2.1
OPTION 3: Indifferent (equivalent to a +0 on up/down vote issues)
Voting will close at Noon Eastern Time on February 20, 2024. In the comments, choose OPTION 1 or OPTION 2 or OPTION 3. The decision will be based on which option receives the most votes. If OPTION 3 receives the most votes, then either OPTION 1 or OPTION 2 will be chosen based on which has the most votes. If both of those receive the same number of votes, I don't know what we will do!
For reference:
Current warning that users see when importing pandas in version 2.2.0:
Pyarrow will become a required dependency of pandas in the next major release of pandas (pandas 3.0),
(to allow more performant data types, such as the Arrow string type, and better interoperability with other libraries)
but was not found to be installed on your system.
If this would cause problems for you,
please provide us feedback at https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/54466
Github issue with feedback: #54466
Github issue with discussion about not requiring pyarrow
: #57073
I'll list the reasons for keeping/removing the warning here, based on my recall of the discussion. Others can feel free to add additional reasons in the comments, or correct my memory.
Reasons for keeping the warning:
- pandas 2.2.0 has only been out for 1 month, so we may obtain more feedback, as many people may have not upgraded yet
- There may be additional reasons for not requiring
pyarrow
that we have not considered - If we remove the warning, then users might infer that we have decided to not require
pyarrow
in version 3.0
Reasons for removing the warning:
- Too many people who are not affected by requring
pyarrow
are confused by the warning - We have enough feedback already to make a decision
- It's too noisy for a variety of use cases