I also have a definite (I guess that's closer to strong that slight) preference for 2.0.
With version numbers, a gap is less likely to cause trouble than the ambiguity of an overlap, and easy to document (vs. with ambiguity, one wouldn't even think to consult the documentation without knowing the history). On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Pei HE <p...@apache.org> wrote: > I vote for 2.0. > > On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Prabeesh K. <prabsma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I also vote for 2.0. >> >> On 5 May 2017 at 21:33, Hadar Hod <had...@google.com.invalid> wrote: >> >> > I also vote for 2.0, for the same reasons Dan stated. >> > As Cham mentioned, we can clarify any confusion in the documentation. >> > >> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com.invalid> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > 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 >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
