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

Re: [PROPOSAL] Prepare Beam 2.8.0 release

+1 to cutting the release.

I agree that the LTS label requires more discussion. I think it boils down to the question of whether we are comfortable with encouraging people to not upgrade to the latest Beam. It probably boils down to creating a list of (potential) blockers and then going from there. Also, on this note, I think we should be very conservative in updating dependencies for an LTS release. 

We could also consider for this release doing an "LTS light" where we prove the process, gain some experience, but don't promise a full 12 months of support (say, cutting it to 6 months). 

- Robert

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:25 AM Tim Robertson <timrobertson100@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was in the middle of writing something similar when Ismaël posted.

Please do bear in mind that this is an international project and 7hrs is not long enough to decide upon something that affects us all.

+1 on cutting 2.8.0 on 10/10 and thank you for pushing it forward

-1 on designating it as LTS:
While LTS is a statement of expectation in maintenance it also carries an element of trust. I propose we should have a separate discussion about what we might like to collectively achieve before announcing our first LTS edition. 
My concern stems from usability and first impressions - for example:
- Beam has real issues with HDFS today (BEAM-5036) which I propose as blocker for announcing LTS 
- DirectRunner and the inability to run basic pipelines on a few GB of data is *really* putting people off our project - we might consider exploring that as it affects our "brand"

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:18 AM Ismaël Mejía <iemejia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Ahmet for volunteering to do the release, and proposing this as an LTS.

I have still some questions on our LTS policies (which may have
consequences on the discussed release):

What are the expected implications of upgrades in the LTS, e.g. If a
connector let’s say Kafka is released using the 1.0 dependency, can it
be moved upwards in a LTS to version 2.0 or this will be considered a
breaking change and we should only move in minor versions. Will this
rule be more relaxed for example for all cloud based dependencies
(GCP, AWS) for example if a security issue or correctness/performance

Given that this will last for a year maybe we should raise some of the
dependencies to the latest versions. Following the recent discussion
on dependencies that cannot be ‘automatically’ updated because of end
user consequences, I still think about what we should do with
(probably related to the previous paragraph):

- Should we move Flink then to 1.6.x considering that 1.5.x won’t be
maintained in less than 6 months.
- Should we wait and upgrade Spark into version 2.4.0 (which is being
voted at this moment but not released but could make sense for a LTS)
or just stay in 2.3.x. Spark is less of an issue because it is a
provided dep but still worth.
- Should we update the IO connectors dependencies to the latest stable
versions who aren’t, e.g. Elasticsearch, HBase,

Of course the goal is not a last minute rush to do this so it fits in
the LTS release, but to see that for LTS we may consider the ‘lasting

One last comment, next time we discuss a proposal please ensure that
we wait at least 24h to reach conclusions or proceed, otherwise this
will exclude opinions from people who are not in the right time zone
(this is the reason why votes last 72h to ensure that everyone may be
aware of what is been voted). This is not a mandatory requirement, but
agreeing on a LTS in 7h seems a bit short.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 1:36 AM Ahmet Altay <altay@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Great. I will do the cut on 10/10.
> Let's start by triaging the open issues targeted for 2.8.0 [1]. If you have any issues in this list please resolve them or move to the next release. If you are aware of any critical issues please add to this list.
> Ahmet
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5456?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.8.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
> > +1 for the 2.7.0 release schedule. Thanks for volunteering. Do we want a standing owner for the LTS branch (like the Linux kernel has) or will we just take volunteers for each LTS release as they arise?
> We have not thought about this before. IMO, it is better to keep things simple and use the same process (i.e. "we just take volunteers for each LTS release as they arise") for patch releases in the future if/when we happen to need those.
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Weise <thw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +1
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:33 PM Ted Yu <yuzhihong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +1
>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:52 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +1
>>>> but we have to be fast in release process. 2.7.0 took more than 1 month
>>>> to be cut !
>>>> If no blocker, we have to just move forward.
> +1
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>> On 03/10/2018 18:25, Ahmet Altay wrote:
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> > Release cut date for the next release is 10/10 according to Beam release
>>>> > calendar [1]. Since the previous release is already mostly wrapped up
>>>> > (modulo blog post), I would like to propose starting the next release on
>>>> > time (10/10).
>>>> >
>>>> > Additionally I propose designating this release as the first
>>>> > long-term-support (LTS) release [2]. This should have no impact on the
>>>> > release process, however it would mean that we commit to patch this
>>>> > release for the next 12 months for major issues.
>>>> >
>>>> > I volunteer to perform this release.
>>>> >
>>>> > What do you think?
>>>> >
>>>> > Ahmet
>>>> >
>>>> > [1] https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src="">
>>>> > [2]
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>> jbonofre@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com