done
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> 2018-02-21 18:31 GMT+01:00 Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]>: > *are _not_ on the burndown :-) > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Romain - it looks like these JIRA tickets are on on the 2.4.0 burndown. >> Can you set their Fix Version field to make sure they are tracked and >> triaged? >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:22 PM, Reuven Lax <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think it's fair to request that the reviewers of these PRs help with >>> your effort to get them merged before the 2.4.0 cut. Existing comments on >>> the PR imply that reviewers think the approaches are reasonable. Assuming >>> that there's not too much work left to be done to address comments, there's >>> a good chance of getting them in. >>> >>> Reuven >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ok >>>> >>>> In terms of what I'd like included, here is the list: >>>> >>>> 1. https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4412 (important to prevent >>>> regressions) >>>> 2. https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4674 (can need some more work >>>> but can break some api if we do, so current state is a functional trade >>>> off). On a more personal side Im blocked by this one for some features. >>>> 3. https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4372 (important cause doesnt >>>> make the execution deterministic depending your surefire config, IDE, main >>>> usage) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 21 févr. 2018 01:29, "Reuven Lax" <[email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> +1, this is keeping with an every-six weeks cadence. >>>>> >>>>> Romain, you can always target Jiras to this release, and then the >>>>> release manager can decide on a case-by-case basis whether to make sure >>>>> the >>>>> fix is included. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> > 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" <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>> >>> <[email protected]> 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" < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> >>> > 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 >>>>>> >>> >> <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>> >> 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 | [email protected] | >>>>>> >>> >> 650-918-7487 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
