Hi,I agree that LTS releases are a good thing for users especially because of
the argument given by Ahmet (enterprise
users). Just 2 comments:- It will require a good amount of backports- The LTS
frequency needs to be flexible IMHO but we
must make sure the period between two LTS is acceptable.
Etienne
Le jeudi 16 août 2018 à 23:13 +0200, Alexey Romanenko a écrit :
> On 16 Aug 2018, at 21:10, Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 7:56 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I agree with this assessment and the risk. I proposed every Nth as a way
> > > to keep LTS releases coming out. I was
> > > concerned about not making any LTS releases for a long time.
> >
> > Yeah. We could certainly have every Nth release by default to keep the
> > cadence up, but note that it's very flexible. Your wording below
> > sounds fine to me.
> >
>
> This sounds reasonable for me too, thanks.
>
> > > How about something like:
> > >
> > > "The community will mark some releases LTS releases (based on the factors
> > > such as the number of LTS releases
> > > currently in flight, and whether the accumulated feature set from the
> > > last LTS provides significant value to
> > > upgrade). There will be at least one new LTS release in a 12 month
> > > period."
> > >
> > > I prepared a PR draft for the above change
> > > (https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/539). I will be OOO for a few
> > > weeks, feel free to edit/merge my PR. I can also do this when I am back.
> > >
> > > > Generally, x.0.0 releases are not used by the target audiences of LTS
> > > > releases, so I would not plan on it (by
> > > > default at least) becoming an LTS candidate.
> > >
> > > I agree with Robert. We can let the community decide based on how we feel
> > > at that time, but unlikely in my
> > > opinion.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018, Alexey Romanenko
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > Ahmet, thank you for raising this topic, I think it defenitevly makes
> > > > > sense to have LTS releases, especially
> > > > > for enterprise users. The other potential solution could be patching
> > > > > only last 2-3 releases but, with a goal
> > > > > of 8 releases per year, it might cover quite a short time slice.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only question for me - do we consider major release (3.0 will be
> > > > > the next one) as LTS release by default
> > > > > despite of the its number in release sequence?
> > > > >
> > > > > On 15 Aug 2018, at 20:36, Pablo Estrada <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I think that sounds good : )
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:34 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > In the PR, I proposed starting with the next (2.7.0) release. I
> > > > > > should have made it more clear. One way of
> > > > > > tracking would be having a table, or perhaps adding this
> > > > > > information to the downloads page. Do you have any
> > > > > > ideas?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Pablo Estrada
> > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > Thanks Ahmet for looking into this. I have a follow-up question.
> > > > > > > Have you thought about the next few
> > > > > > > releases, and which one will be the first LTS release? Also, how
> > > > > > > should we track this?
> > > > > > > -P.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:24 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > PR is reviewed and merged. Thank you all for the input. If you
> > > > > > > > did not have a chance to share your
> > > > > > > > feedback, please propose any modifications that you would like
> > > > > > > > to see. I will be more than happy to make
> > > > > > > > changes that would allows us to serve our users better.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Ahmet Altay <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Still waiting for any additional user feedback to come. I
> > > > > > > > > added reviewers to the PR. Unless there is
> > > > > > > > > objections or additional feedback I would like to go ahead
> > > > > > > > > with this version as it is. Modifications
> > > > > > > > > after that would always be welcome.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Rafael Fernandez
> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I think this will great for the project! It's worked well
> > > > > > > > > > for others (such as Ubuntu). I like that
> > > > > > > > > > this remains compatible with our desire to release every
> > > > > > > > > > six weeks, while keeping the support/patch
> > > > > > > > > > load manageable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Release: +1 single process. This is just a statement of
> > > > > > > > > > what we commit to service.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:31 PM Ahmet Altay
> > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I was not proposing any additional changes to the release
> > > > > > > > > > > process. If we think that release
> > > > > > > > > > > process could be improved it would make sense to apply it
> > > > > > > > > > > to all releases.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Lukasz Cwik
> > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Charles, I would keep the process the same with respect
> > > > > > > > > > > > to releasing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:00 AM Charles Chen
> > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (sending to the dev@ list thread as this is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > relevant here than users@)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Will we be using a different / potentially more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rigorous process for releasing LTS releases?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Or do we feel that any validations that could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > possibly be done should already be incorporated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > into each release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:57 AM Ahmet Altay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Update:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I sent out an email to user@ to collect their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback [1]. I will encourage everyone here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to collect feedback from the other channels
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > available to you. To facilitate the discussion I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > drafted my proposal in a PR [2].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahmet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/537
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, I can see the reasoning for LTS releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > based upon some enterprise customers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forgot about the 2.1.1 Python release. Thanks for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pointing that out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:47 PM Ahmet Altay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the ideas that your proposing but am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wondering what value if any do supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LTS releases add? We maintain semantic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versioning and I would expect that most users
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be using the latest released version if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not the release just before that. There
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is likely a long tail of users who will use a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific version and are unlikely to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ever upgrade.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe there is a category of enterprise
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users who would continue to use a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version as long as they know they can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support for it. This usually stems from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to have a stable environment. There is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also the aspect of validating new product
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > before using. I know some companies have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validation cycles longer than 6 weeks. They
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will still upgrade but they would like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade much less frequently.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was hoping that defining LTS releases will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signal these types of users what releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are worth upgrading to if they have a high cost
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of upgrading.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This comes from my anecdotal evidence and I may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe it would be valuable to ask our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users what is most important to them with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to the policy (after we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussed it a little bit) as well since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ultimately our goal is to help our users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with this. Since I am referring to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enterprise users primarily I think some of it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will require the companies here to collect that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This could then be documented and we could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide guidance to customers as to how to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach out to the group for big bugs. Also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note that Apache has a security policy[1] in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > place which we should direct users to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think document what could be expected of Beam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in terms of support would be very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valuable by itself. It will also help us figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out what we could drop. For example in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the recent discussion to drop old API docs,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there was no clear guidance on which SDKs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are still supported and should have their API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > docs hosted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we reference to the Apache security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > policy on our website. If not I agree, we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should add a reference to it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, we don't have any experience in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patching a release as we haven't yet done one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patch version bump. All issues that have been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brought up were always fixed in the next
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > minor version bump.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. There was the Python 2.1.1 but that is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only example I could remember.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1: http://www.apache.org/security/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:50 AM Pablo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Estrada <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this all sounds reasonable, and I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think it would be a good story for our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users. We don't have much experience with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > patching releases, but I guess it's a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > matter of learning and improving over time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -P.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:04 PM Ahmet Altay
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like us to clarify the life cycle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Beam releases a little bit more for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our users. I think we increased the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > predictability significantly by agreeing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release cadence and kudos to everyone on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that. As a follow up to that I would like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to address the following problem:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is unclear for a user of Beam how long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an existing version will be supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if it will be supported at all, what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does that support mean. (This is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > especially an important problem for users
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who would like to use stable versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and care less about being on the cutting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edge.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our current state is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - With our agreed release cadence Beam
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes 8 releases a year.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - We have precedence for patching
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > released versions for major issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Patching all existing releases at any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > point (even patching a year full of 8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases) will be significant work.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the problem and the information, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have the following proposal to define the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > life cycle of existing releases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Define what is a major issue with Beam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For example this could be high severity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > security issues and high risk data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrity issues.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Have a concept of long term support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (LTS) releases. Designate every 4th
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as an LTS release (~6 months).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Deprecate non-LTS releases the moment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any new Beam release is out. Never patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-LTS releases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Deprecate LTS releases after a new LTS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release comes out. Patch any LTS release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > within 1 year of its initial release date.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add the above information to our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > website.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this proposal would give clear
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information to our users about what they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can expect from us, and reduce our burden
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to maintain existing releases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also would like to state my assumptions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Releases will happen not because of a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > policy but because there are volunteers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > willing to do it. This proposal is only a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework for those volunteers to take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > action. If Beam does not support its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases, with or without a policy, we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reduce the trust of our users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - After we agreed to have a regular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release cadence we started to see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > towards having regular releases even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > though we did not perfectly hit 6 weeks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mark
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each time. I do expect the same here: an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvement in the direction of user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happiness even if we cannot be perfect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahmet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback
> > > > > --
> > > > > Got feedback? go/pabloem-feedback
