On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: > > 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 ;) > > Agree. A stable pace is the most important thing.
+1, and I think everyone who's done a release is in favor of making it easier and more frequent. Someone should put together a proposal of easy things we can do to automate, etc. >> 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. > > Ah, good point. This doesn't stop us from checking in these new features > into 2.x possibly tagged with an @Experimental flag. We can then use 3.0 to > announce all these features more broadly, and remove @Experimental tags. > > I would also like to see enterprise-ready BeamSQL and Java 7 deprecation on > the list for Beam 3.0 > >> >> 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 ;)). I'm generally not a fan of bumping the major version number just because enough time has passed, or enough new features have gone in (and am mostly opposed to holding features back just because we want to announce them (simultanously?) in a big release)--instead I find that the need for a new major version arises out of a realization that the model has sufficiently changed and we need to cut ties with the old way of doing things (that's perhaps holding us back). That being said, it could be that some of these features are large enough to merit this. Regardless of the naming, I think it's a great time to have a discussion of where we want to go in 2018. Top of my list is first class support for Schema'd PCollections (and with it SQL support, etc.) and full support of the portability framework realizing the possibility of every runner running every SDK (and, ideally, even cross-SDK/language pipelines). I would also like to see explorations into interactive/incremental (for Python at least, but probably Java as well). - Robert >> 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 > >
