The features/bugfixes included in a release are determined by the time between cutting release branches. So I'd focus on that cadence (outside of special requests).
Kenn On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:17 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The average time just in the vote process for Beam since we are out of the >> incubator is 17.5 days with an average of 75 days between versions. >> > > Good thought to look at history. I think there's general consensus that > this is longer than we would like. > > >> Version Vote Period No. days >> 2.3.0 30/01-16/02 17 days (83 days since last) >> 2.2.0 27/10-25/11 29 days (101 days since last) >> 2.1.0 11/07-16/08 36 days (92 days since last) >> 2.0.0 08/05-16/05 8 days (62 days since last) >> 0.6.0 10/03-15/03 5 days (37 days since last) >> 0.5.0 27/01-06/02 10 days >> >> I think we should have these numbers into account to refine the distance >> between >> releases. If we want to follow strict time-based releases, what we can >> probably >> refine is how we cut the release so we try to reduce release overlaps and >> avoid >> rushing unnecessarily. >> >> Maybe we should follow the proposed 6 weeks for the next release like >> this: >> >> - 4 weeks let’s say just after succesful vote and then cut the release >> branch. >> - 1 week to burn the blocker list (good to have ones that don’t make will >> be >> moved to the next release). >> - 1 week for the vote + RCs (in case the vote takes longer at least the >> overlap >> between vote + next dev cycle will be smaller). >> >> If we do this for the next cycle we will have a 6 week ‘dev’ period and >> then we >> will have optimistically an average of 2 weeks of ‘releasing’ and 6 weeks >> ‘dev’ >> cycles. >> > > 1 week vote seems optimistic. On the other hand, the reason to have a > release branch is so that dev work can continue during an ongoing release. > > >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> > About BEAM-3409, I did a review yesterday and it looks good to me. We >> are >> > waiting for Thomas' feedback. >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > Le 1 mars 2018, à 09:38, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> a écrit: >> >> >> >> Looking at the burn-down list, we have 5 remaining issues. None of >> these >> >> are blockers, but all look like they're really close (reviewed, review >> >> comments were addressed, waiting for a final LGTM). Specifically: >> >> >> >> BEAM-3409 (teardown issues): Thomas Groh had some concerns, could you >> >> verify they have all been addressed? >> >> BEAM-3479 (DoFn classloader regression test): Kenn Knowles had minor >> >> comments, looks like they were addressed, could you confirm? >> >> BEAM-3735 (Missing gaming release archetypes): Lukasz Cwik had minor >> >> comments, looks like they were addressed, could you confirm? >> >> BEAM-3611 (KafkaIO.java splitting): Looks like this was resolved. >> >> BEAM-3762 (unlimited JCE for Dataflow Worker): LGTM pending (currently >> >> running) tests passing. >> >> >> >> Let's see how many of these we can get in by, say, noon PST tomorrow. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:26 PM Robert Bradshaw < rober...@google.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> 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 < >> j...@nanthrax.net> >> >>> 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 < >> >>>> > j...@nanthrax.net >> >>>> > <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net>> 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 < >> >>>> > j...@nanthrax.net <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net> >> >>>> > > <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net>>> 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 < >> >>>> > j...@nanthrax.net <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net> >> >>>> > > <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net>> >> >>>> > > > <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net> >> >>>> > <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net >> >>>> > <mailto: j...@nanthrax.net>>>> 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 >> >>>> > > > jbono...@apache.org <mailto: jbono...@apache.org> >> >>>> > <mailto: jbono...@apache.org >> >>>> > <mailto: jbono...@apache.org>> >> >>>> > > <mailto: 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> >> >>>> > <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 <(650)%20918-7487> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >>>> jbono...@apache.org >> >>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> >>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >
