I would also like to vote for strong 2.0 with the same reasons as Dan mentioned. It will be less confusing for the users overall.
Ahmet On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote: > Strongly for 2.0.0: > * Aljoscha > * Cham > * Dan > * Luke > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0: > * Davor > * Ismael > * Kenn > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none. > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0: > * Amit > * Jesse > * JB > * Manu > * Mingmin > * Ted > * Thomas W. > > Unbelievably, the tally is 7 : 7. However, the 2.0 camp tends to feel more > strongly, and we have nobody who feels strongly for 1.0. Thus, it seems > going with 2.0.0 is the path of least resistance. > > With that, I'll start building the 2.0.0 RCs, and we'll formally > ratify/reject this decision in an RC vote. > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, María García Herrero < > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > The bigger letters aimed to indicate "strongly in favor of" as opposed to > > "weakly in favor of." I'm OK with not using a doc, just responding to > Ted's > > question. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
