When are we planning on cutting? On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> Hi, > > yes, I proposed some weeks ago a best effort to have a release every two > months. > > I'm also volunteer to do those releases and iteratively improve the > process. > > Regards > JB > > On 01/09/2018 06:28 PM, Konstantinos Katsiapis wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Our team works on tensorflow.transform <https://github.com/tensorflow >> /transform> (which depends on Apache Beam) and a regular Beam release >> cadence would make our releases a lot easier (eg our 0.5 release will >> likely require and depend on Beam 2.3). >> >> Is the plan to make "regular" something like monthly or something along >> those lines? >> If a release train is fairly regular then it's easy to forego new >> features and wait for the next release, but if it is uncertain, votes might >> unnecessarily block releases. >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Rafael Fernandez <rfern...@google.com >> <mailto:rfern...@google.com>> wrote: >> >> +1! I like the predictability a schedule would bring. And I think it >> helps >> feature users to budget their time a little better -- there's always >> the >> next scheduled train, so no need to stress out to ship in the current >> one. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:37 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com >> <mailto:k...@google.com>> wrote: >> >> +1 to not holding except for critical bugs and regressions. Using >> 2.3.0 >> to improve automation is a great idea. >> >> Features can make the next release, and backwards incompatible >> refinements should have quiesced long before a feature comes out >> of >> @Experimental status. >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Reuven Lax <re...@google.com >> <mailto:re...@google.com>> wrote: >> >> +1 - this is definitely one of the (multiple) things that >> delayed >> 2.2.0. In my opinion releases should be held up for critical >> bug >> fixes, but not for features. Any feature work can always go >> into >> 2.4.0, and with any luck we can get 2.3.0 out much faster >> than 2.2.0. >> >> Reuven >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Robert Bradshaw >> <rober...@google.com <mailto:rober...@google.com>> wrote: >> >> +1 for starting the 2.3 ball rolling. >> >> In general, I'd like to avoid holding up releases for >> specific >> features/PRs. The is (one of the things) that holds up >> releases >> which >> then is a vicious cycle for more people wanting to make >> their >> feature >> a condition of the next release, etc. (Bugs, regressions, >> and >> backwards-incompatible refinements to new features are >> fair >> candidates >> as the need arises...) >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:04 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> <j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote: >> > Hi Romain, >> > >> > no problem: let's try a best effort and define the >> target >> version in the >> > Jira. >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On 01/08/2018 03:51 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi JB, >> >> >> >> I'd like https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4235 >> <https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4235> to be >> integrated if >> >> possible >> >> >> >> Also the JUnit 5 PR brings some light changes which >> can be >> worth the "3" >> >> digit upgrade so if anyone has some time to review it >> can be >> a good >> >> candidate too. >> >> >> >> Thanks for driving it >> >> >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau >> <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>> | Blog >> >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/ >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/>> | Old Blog >> >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com>> | Github >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau < >> https://github.com/rmannibucau>> >> >> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>> >> >> >> >> 2018-01-08 15:37 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> <j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net> >> >> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>>: >> >> >> >> Hi guys, >> >> >> >> In a previous discussion thread, we agreed that we >> should have a >> >> regular >> >> pace in term of releases. >> >> >> >> We released Beam 2.2.0 on the 16th of November >> '17, but >> the release >> >> takes a >> >> pretty long time. >> >> >> >> I think it's reasonable to think about Beam 2.3.0 >> in the >> coming weeks. >> >> I >> >> would like to propose target Beam 2.3.0 for end >> January/beginning of >> >> February. >> >> >> >> I'm volunteer to do this release. >> >> >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> JB >> >> -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >> jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> >> <mailto:jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org>> >> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gus Katsiapis | Software Engineer |katsia...@google.com <mailto: >> katsia...@google.com> | 650-918-7487 >> > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
