Well why we just don't merge it? I am unfamiliar with GCP deps to be confident to LGTM it. but given that 22 checks pass and given that Tomo addressed most comments and he has already a consistent track of good work on dependency improvements I think it is worth to merge it as it is. We still have some time to fix stuff if we find any regression. WDYT?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:36 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: > > As much as I would like to spend time on these reviews, I believe I'll be > delayed from reviewing them thoroughly till I finish other work that I'm > targeting for the 2.21 release related to portability. It would be greatly > appreciated if there are others that could review this in the meantime. > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 7:09 AM Tomo Suzuki <suzt...@google.com> wrote: >> >> PR is ready (22 successful check) >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11156 >> (Luke assigned himself as a reviewer) >> >> Regards, >> Tomo >> >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:50 PM Tomo Suzuki <suzt...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thank you for favorable responses. I'll start implementation. >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:22 PM Tomo Suzuki <suzt...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Do Spark or Flink have BOMs? >>>> >>>> Not that I know of. I couldn't find "bom" in their artifacts [1, 2]. >>>> >>>> [1]: https://search.maven.org/search?q=g:org.apache.flink >>>> [2]: https://search.maven.org/search?q=g:org.apache.spark >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:46 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 and you have phrased the benefits and limitations well. We have plenty >>>>> of not-Google-related dependencies that use Guava and protobuf (I know of >>>>> Calcite, Cassandra, Kinesis, and Spark) so there's still work in managing >>>>> deps, but the BOM should make it a lot easier to upgrade all these >>>>> tightly coupled libraries that Google ships from their head. >>>>> >>>>> Do Spark or Flink have BOMs? I wonder if there's an opportunity to catch >>>>> incompatible deps at a larger scale by comparing and merging a half dozen >>>>> BOMs (although in the limit it approximately expands to one per runner >>>>> and one per IO and projects mature and become independent) >>>>> >>>>> Kenn >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:05 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> How would the Apache Beam BOM and GCP BOM work together? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:25 AM Filipe Regadas <filiperega...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Big +1, this is a step in the right direction and checking with other >>>>>>> Beam's direct and transitive deps is crucial since the referred bom >>>>>>> only convers a small part of it. Apache Commons, Jackson, >>>>>>> `com.google.{api, apis, cloud}`, slf4j comes to mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Filipe Regadas >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 3:33 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 Sounds like a good improvement for users and maintainers ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:59 AM Alex Van Boxel <a...@vanboxel.be> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > +1, I can remember the countless hours that we fought with Google >>>>>>>> > dependencies. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020, 04:07 Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> +1 for this. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> This will make life easy for many of our users and will help us >>>>>>>> >> keep GCP related dependencies compatible (which has not been easy >>>>>>>> >> in the past). >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:16 PM Tomo Suzuki <suzt...@google.com> >>>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Hi Beam developers, >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Shall we use GCP Libraries BOM [1] to specify the Google-related >>>>>>>> >>> library versions in Beam? >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> I've been working on Beam's dependency upgrades in the past few >>>>>>>> >>> months. It's time to consider a long-term solution to keep the >>>>>>>> >>> libraries up-to-date with small maintenance effort. To achieve >>>>>>>> >>> that, I propose Beam to use GCP Libraries BOM to set the >>>>>>>> >>> Google-related library versions, rather than the current way of >>>>>>>> >>> making changes in each of ~30 Google libraries with individual PRs >>>>>>>> >>> [2]. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> After the proposal is implemented, Beam project upgrades the BOM >>>>>>>> >>> version to upgrade these Google-related libraries. This still >>>>>>>> >>> needs to ensure the libraries in GCP Library BOM are compatible >>>>>>>> >>> with Beam's other dependencies. (Linkage Checker will help with >>>>>>>> >>> this job.) I believe onboarding GCP Libraries BOM will solve lots >>>>>>>> >>> of incompatibilities which we have seen in gax, gRPC, >>>>>>>> >>> google-cloud-core, and so on with minimal effort in Beam's >>>>>>>> >>> developers. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Created an issue to track this: BEAM-9444 [3]. I appreciate if you >>>>>>>> >>> can share questions or feedback (thumbs-up / concerns). >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> [1]: >>>>>>>> >>> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-opensource-java/wiki/The-Google-Cloud-Platform-Libraries-BOM >>>>>>>> >>> [2]: >>>>>>>> >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pulls?page=1&q=is%3Apr+author%3Asuztomo >>>>>>>> >>> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9444 >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> -- >>>>>>>> >>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>> Tomo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Tomo >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Tomo >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Tomo
