My vote, like Davor: Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp. > > -- > sent from mobile > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" <mingm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine with 2.0.0. >> >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0 >> > >> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > 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 >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> ---- >> Mingmin >>
