Yea, let's work hard on improving the ease and pace of releases. I am not really happy to have only quarterly releases.
Automation of release process where possible, better test coverage, a higher resistance to cherry-picks. Kenn On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Reuven, > > Yes, I remember that we agreed on a release per month. However, we didn't > do it before. I think the most important is not the period, it's more a > stable pace. I think it's more interesting for our community to have > "always" a release every two months, more than a tentative of a release > every month that end later than that. Of course, if we can do both, it's > perfect ;) > > For Beam 3.x, I wasn't talking about breaking change, but more about > "marketing" announcement. I think that, even if we don't break API, some > features are "strong enough" to be "qualified" in a major version. > > I think that any major idea & feature (breaking or not the API) are > valuables for Beam 3.x (and it's a good sign for our community again ;)). > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB > > On 11/28/2017 06:09 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net >> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> Even if there's no rush, I think it would be great for the community >> to have >> a better view on our roadmap and where we are going in term of >> schedule. >> >> I would like to discuss the following: >> - a best effort to maintain a good release pace or at least provide a >> rough >> schedule. For instance, in Apache Karaf, I have a release schedule >> (http://karaf.apache.org/download.html#container-schedule >> <http://karaf.apache.org/download.html#container-schedule>). I think >> a >> release ~ every quarter would be great. >> >> >> Originally we had stated that we wanted monthly releases of Beam. So far >> the releases have been painful enough that monthly hasn't happened. I think >> we should address these issues and go to monthly releases as originally >> stated. >> >> - if I see new Beam 2.x releases for sure (according to the previous >> point), >> it would be great to have discussion about Beam 3.x. I think that one >> of >> interesting new feature that Beam 3.x can provide is around >> PCollection with >> Schemas. It's something that we started to discuss with Reuven and >> Eugene. >> In term of schedule, >> >> >> I don't think schemas require Beam 3.0 - I think we can introduce them >> without making breaking changes. However there are many other features that >> would be very interesting for Beam 3.x, and we should start putting >> together a list of them. >> >> >> I would love to see your thoughts & ideas about releases schedule and >> Beam 3.x. >> >> Regards >> JB >> -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
