+1 to bring this to ASF repo ASAP. Also +1 to Aljoscha's idea if we can guarantee no interference. An extra branch has the issue of rebasing that will be 'automatically' solved if the development continues in master. Also other it will be easier to more contributors to jump in.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > I think we're actually quite safe in merging this into master because it > doesn't really touch the currently existing Flink Runner. The "Portable > Flink Runner" is essentially a new Runner that reuses some of the existing > code and runtime components but doesn't modify them. > > What do you think? > > > On 17. Apr 2018, at 00:54, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > > We now have 290 commits in (bsidhom/beam/hacking-job-server - > apache/beam/master). To better get a handle on this, I created > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KF5n5eTq0neIqwhIkFbvRTbp0G5mqmJ9O4ywSMWtfq0/edit#gid=1955143518 > ; I'd ask everyone to help fill this out (creating and/or assigning JIRAS) > and propose we rebase/merge as much as possible of this back into master > (possibly guarded by a flag, as Romain states). Even just enumerating things > that will not be suitable for merging into master as-is will be helpful. > > Thanks, > Robert > > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 8:47 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: >> >> Yea, that's a nice idea Romain. I would support trying to move code to >> master behind a flag ASAP. >> >> The thing to remember is this: if/when a feature branch moves to master it >> is too large to review all together. So the reviews to get things onto a >> feature branch need to be the same quality and clarity standard as master. >> If it is a "hack" branch then the code needs to be re-reviewed, so the >> branch itself should not plan on merging directly but instead have the code >> copied into new PRs for full review. >> >> Kenn >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:36 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Maybe add a toggle in flinkoptions to activate it until it is tested and >>> you are happy with it? Kind of --flinkExperimental=sdf,log,... (random >>> values). This allows to hit master and continue to work on it. >>> >>> Le 13 avr. 2018 03:07, "Robert Bradshaw" <rober...@google.com> a écrit : >>> >>> Thomas captures exactly my concerns. >>> >>> I think we should look at getting everything we can into master (at least >>> filing JIRAs, the work may take longer) and move what development we can >>> there. What remains would be a collection of hacks (mostly in the SDKs, >>> but >>> it's not a feature branch 'cause we'd never want to actually merge it in) >>> that hopefully we can whittle away (again, JIRAs should be filed for the >>> items there). >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 5:44 PM Henning Rohde <hero...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> > + 1 to capture in JIRA what needs to be done. >>> >>> > The simplest path forward might be to reimplement/cherrypick'n'modify >>> > the >>> changes onto master directly. We would then effectively just abandon the >>> hacking branch and treat code there as a prototype. Although we would add >>> components without end2end verification initially, it would allow >>> parallel >>> progress across the SDKs and the Flink runner. The Go SDK is also already >>> in master and can help test the migration of the Flink runner changes >>> before the other SDKs are ready. >>> >>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:44 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> >> Strong +1 on transitioning all development to the ASF repo. >>> >>> >> I think a straight move of the hacking branch may still be problematic >>> though, because it sets the path to continue hacking vs. working towards >>> a >>> viable milestone that other contributors can base their work off. I would >>> prefer a state that separates serious development from hacks in a way >>> where >>> the code does not overlap. >>> >>> >> Based on Ben's assessment, if most of the hacks are currently are in >>> >> the >>> SDK area, then perhaps we can transition everything related to job server >>> and translation to master so that it is possible to build and work on the >>> runner there and then only use the hacked SDKs branch for demos? >>> >>> >> And maybe discuss an MVP milestone and put together a JIRA view that >>> shows what remains to be done to get there? >>> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Thomas >>> >>> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> So I would be strongly in favour of adding it as a branch on the >>> >>> Apache >>> repo. This way other folks are more likely to be able to help with the >>> splitting up and merging process and also while Flink forward is behind >>> us >>> getting in the practice of doing feature branches on the ASF repo for >>> collaboration instead of personal github accounts seems like a worthy >>> goal. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:21 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I suppose with the hackathon and flink forward behind us, I'm >>> >>>> thinking >>> we >>> >>>> should start shifting gears more getting what we have into master in >>> >>>> production state and less on continuing working on a hacking branch. >>> If we >>> >>>> think it'll fairly quick there's no big need to create an official >>> branch, >>> >>>> and if it's going to be long lived perhaps we should rethink our >>> process. >>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:44 PM Aljoscha Krettek >>> >>>> <aljos...@apache.org> >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> > I would also be in favour of adding a branch to our main repo. A >>> random >>> >>>> branch on some personal GitHub account can seem a bit sketchy and >>> adding a >>> >>>> branch to our repo could make it more visible for people that are >>> >>>> interested. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> > On 12. Apr 2018, at 15:29, Ben Sidhom <sid...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> > I would say that most of it is not suitable for direct merging. >>> There are >>> >>>> several reasons for this: >>> >>> >>>> > Most changes are built on upstream PRs that are either not >>> >>>> > submitted >>> or >>> >>>> have been rebased before submission. >>> >>>> > There are some very hacky changes in the Python and Java SDKs to >>> >>>> > get >>> >>>> portable pipelines working. For example, hard coding certain options >>> and/or >>> >>>> baking dependencies into the SDK harness images. These need to be >>> actually >>> >>>> implemented correctly in their respective SDKs. >>> >>>> > Much of the code does not have proper tests and fails simple lint >>> tests. >>> >>> >>>> > As a concrete example, I tried cherry-picking the changes from >>> >>>> https://github.com/bsidhom/beam/pull/46 into master. This is a >>> relatively >>> >>>> simple change, but there were so many merge conflicts that in the >>> >>>> end >>> it >>> >>>> was easier to just reimplement the changes atop master. More >>> importantly, >>> >>>> most changes will require refactoring before actually going in. >>> >>> >>>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Robert Bradshaw >>> >>>> > <rober...@google.com >>> >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >> How much of this is not suitable to merging into master directly >>> (not as >>> >>>> >> is, but as separate PRs)? >>> >>>> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM Ben Sidhom <sid...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >> > Hey all, >>> >>> >>>> >> > I've been working on a proof-of-concept portable Flink runner >>> with some >>> >>>> >> other Beam contributors. We would like to have a point of >>> >>>> >> reference >>> for >>> >>>> the >>> >>>> >> rest of the Beam community as we integrate this work into master. >>> >>>> >> It >>> >>>> >> currently lives under >>> >>>> >> https://github.com/bsidhom/beam/tree/hacking-job-server. >>> >>> >>>> >> > I would suggest pulling this into the main ASF repo under an >>> >>>> >> appropriately-named branch (flink-portable-hacking?). The name >>> should >>> >>>> >> suggest the intention that this branch is not intended to be >>> >>>> >> pulled >>> into >>> >>>> >> master as-is and that it should rather be used as a reference for >>> now. >>> >>> >>>> >> > Thoughts? >>> >>> >>>> >> > -- >>> >>>> >> > -Ben >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> > -- >>> >>>> > -Ben >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >>> >>> >
