Let's not use the side document, please. The document has to be world-writable, and accidental changes can occur.
I'd kindly ask to use email for this one, as usual, to keep a record (in this specific case). On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth columns ? > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero < > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here > > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ABx3U8ojcfUkFig3hG53lOYl73tdk > > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing> > > . > > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago and > the > > responses afterwards. > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps. > > > > > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor. > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 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@%3C > dev.beam.apache.org > > %3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > > > > > > > > > > jbono...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > ---- > > > > > Mingmin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
