+1 for having regular release cycles. Finalizing a release takes time in the order of a few weeks and starting a new release soon after the previous one is a reliable way for having releases every 6 weeks.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > Yep. I am starting the "Let's do a 2.4.0 release" thread almost > exactly 6 weeks after JB first started the 2.3.0 release thread. > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote: > > I would like to +1 the faster release cycle process JB and Robert have > been > > advocating and implementing, and thank JB for releasing 2.3.0 smoothly. > > When we block for specific features and increase the time between > releases, > > we increase the urgency for PR authors to push for their change to go > into > > an upcoming release, which is a feedback loop that results in our > releases > > taking months instead of weeks. We should however try to get pending PRs > > wrapped up. > > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:15 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Kind of agree but rythm was supposed to be 6 weeks IIRC, 2.3 is just out > >> so 1 week is a bit fast IMHO. > >> > >> Le 20 févr. 2018 23:13, "Robert Bradshaw" <rober...@google.com> a > écrit : > >>> > >>> One of the main shifts that I think helped this release was explicitly > >>> not being feature driven, rather releasing what's already in the > >>> branch. That doesn't mean it's not a good call to action to try and > >>> get long-pending PRs or similar wrapped up. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > There are a lot of long pending PR, would be good to merge them > before > >>> > 2.4. > >>> > Some are bringing tests for the 2.3 release which can be critical to > >>> > include. > >>> > > >>> > Maybe we should list the pr and jira we want it before picking a > date? > >>> > > >>> > Le 20 févr. 2018 22:02, "Konstantinos Katsiapis" < > katsia...@google.com> > >>> > a > >>> > écrit : > >>> >> > >>> >> +1 since tf.transform 0.6 depends on Beam 2.4 and Tensorflow 1.6 > (and > >>> >> the > >>> >> latter already has an RC out, so we will likely be blocked on Beam). > >>> >> > >>> >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Robert Bradshaw > >>> >> <rober...@google.com> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Now that Beam 2.3.0 went out (and in record time, kudos to all that > >>> >>> made this happen!) It'd be great to keep the ball rolling for a > >>> >>> similarly well-executed 2.4. A lot has gone in [1] since we made > the > >>> >>> 2.3 cut, and to keep our cadence up I would propose a time-based > cut > >>> >>> date early next week (say the 28th). > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I'll volunteer to do this release. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/compare/release-2.3.0...master > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> -- > >>> >> Gus Katsiapis | Software Engineer | katsia...@google.com | > >>> >> 650-918-7487 >
