I tend to fall into the "release early, release often" camp in general, but for this one I'm particularly anxious to get the faster Python direct runner out in the hands of TFT/TFX users (and in particular have an eye on https://www.tensorflow.org/dev-summit/ which I think can be a healthy source of Beam users).
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:01 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gus, > > Thanks for the update, it makes sense. > > Regards > JB > > On 03/01/2018 02:59 AM, Konstantinos Katsiapis wrote: > > Hi Jean-Baptiste, > > > > I can speak from the perspective of tf.transform > > <https://github.com/tensorflow/transform> (TFT) in particular and TFX > > <https://research.google.com/pubs/pub46484.html> libs in general, in > case it is > > useful. > > > > TFX distributed computation has 2 "large" dependencies, namely > TensorFlow and > > Apache Beam, each on their own release schedule. > > As such, releasing of new TFX functionality often (but not always) > depends on > > (and is blocked by) releases of *both* TensorFlow *and* Apache Beam. > > > > Synchronizing releases across such large projects and organizations is > likely > > hard, so from our perspective having *frequent* releases of Tensorflow > or Apache > > Beam (and better yet both) decreases the time for which we are blocked on > > releasing our features. > > > > In light of this, I would vote for more frequent releases in general, > and for a > > Beam 2.4 release soon in particular (as TFT 0.6 depends on it). > > > > Thanks, > > Gus > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > By the way, if third party projects based on Beam (Google Dataflow, > Talend > > DataStream, and others) need a release (including some features), > it's better to > > clearly state this on the mailing list. > > > > At Apache Karaf, I have lot of projects based on it (OpenDaylight, > OpenHAB, > > Websphere, ...). They just ask for the release schedule and they > align with > > these release. As a best effort, I'm always trying to move fast when > a release > > is asked. > > > > So, if 2.4.0 is required by third party, no problem to "ask for a > release". > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 02/28/2018 04:17 AM, Reuven Lax wrote: > > > It's been six weeks since you proposed beam 2.3.0. so assuming the > same time > > > scale for this release, that's 1.5 months between releases. > Slightly faster than > > > 2 months, but not by much. > > > > > > I do seem to remember that the original goal for beam was monthly > releases though. > > > > > > Reuven > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018, 9:12 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Reuven, > > > > > > In a previous thread (about Beam project execution), I > proposed a release every > > > two months (as a best effort), I will find the e-mail. > > > > > > Beam 2.3.0 has been released "officially" on February 16th, so > two week ago > > > roughly. I would have expected 2.4.0 not before end of March. > > > > > > If we have issue we want to fix fast, then 2.3.1 is good. If > it's a new release > > > in the pace, it's pretty fast and might "confuse" our users. > > > > > > That's why I'm curious ;) > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > On 02/28/2018 03:50 AM, Reuven Lax wrote: > > > > Wasn't the original statement monthly releases? We've never > realistically > > > > managed that, but Robert's proposed cut will be on a 6-week > pace. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018, 8:48 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > > > I'm just curious: it's pretty fast compared to the > original plan of a > > > release > > > > every two months. What's the reason to cut 2.4.0 now > instead of end of > > > March ? > > > > > > > > I will do the Jira triage and update today. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > On 02/27/2018 09:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > > > > I'm planning on cutting the 2.4.0 release branch soon > (tomorrow?). I > > > see 13 > > > > > open issues on JIRA [1], none of which are labeled as > blockers. If there > > > > > are any that cannot be bumped to the next release, let > me know soon. > > > > > > > > > > - Robert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3749?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.4.0 > > < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3749?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.4.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gus Katsiapis | Software Engineer | [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> | 650-918-7487 > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
