I'll join Davor's group. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's re-examine this > after some time has passed. > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the summary: > > Strongly for 2.0.0: > * Aljoscha > * Dan > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0: > * Davor > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none. > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0: > * Amit > * Jesse > * JB > * Ted > > Any additional opinions? > > Thanks! > > Davor > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela <amitsel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be very clear on > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is not as mature as > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than others, some run on > > YARN better than others, etc. > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community usually expects > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as we do some > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly. > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use > scenarios > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is released is > > > indeed stable. > > > > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release compared > to > > > 1.0 release. > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This issue > is > > > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase the > > question > > > > once to see whether a consensus is possible. > > > > > > > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the > project > > > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your > opinion, > > > the > > > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the negative impact > > of > > > > the less desirable alternative please? > > > > > > > > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a possible > > > > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away from > weighing > > > in > > > > on this topic.) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < > aljos...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes sense > > for > > > > > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision the > > > confusion > > > > > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Davor, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We > > > have > > > > a > > > > > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing > > Dataflow). > > > > > > > > > > > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order > > to > > > > > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0 > > could > > > > > help. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand > > starting > > > > > > from 2.0.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > > > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; > see > > > > > > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first > stable > > > > > > release" > > > > > > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something > > > else, > > > > to > > > > > > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based > > > > decision > > > > > > on > > > > > > > this matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate > > > designation > > > > > for > > > > > > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A > > > > > > reasonable > > > > > > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.0.0: > > > > > > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y. > > > > > > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose. > > > > > > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs > > carrying > > > > the > > > > > > > same number. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.0.0: > > > > > > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- > > continuing > > > > > their > > > > > > > version numbering scheme from their previous origin. > > > > > > > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity. > > > > > > > * May be unexpected to some users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- > > > names > > > > > are > > > > > > > important and well correlated with success. Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Davor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > > > > c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629 > > > > > > > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > > > jbono...@apache.org > > > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
