I didn't have a specific rubric, but here are some factors: - Impact on users - Impact on other devs (while we are incubating, this is possibly a big deal) - Backwards compatibility (not that important until stable release if it is minor) - Amount of detail needed to understand the proposal - Whether the proposal needs multiple re-readings to understand thoroughly - Whether the proposal will take a while to implement, or is basically a one-PR thing
I think any of these is enough to consider a BIP. I'm sure others will think of other considerations. All my "no" answers are pretty mild on all categories IMO. Most of the "yes" answers are heavy in more than one. So actually I didn't specifically consider whether it was a model change, but only the impact on users and backwards compatibility. For your example of PipelineResult#waitToFinish, if we had a stable release then I would have said "yes" for these reasons. The "maybe" answers were all testing infrastructure, because they take a while to complete and have high impact on development processes. But now that I write these criteria down, I would change the "maybe" answers to "no". Thoughts? Kenn On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > Kenn, just to start the discussion, what was your criteria to decide what > proposals are worth been a BIP ? > > I can clearly spot the most common case to create a BIP: Changes to the > model / SDK (this covers most of the 'yes' in your list, with the exception > of Pipeline#waitToFinish). > > Do you guys have ideas for other criteria ? (e.g. are new runners and DSLs > worth a BIP ?, or do Infrastructure issues deserve a BIP ?). > > Ismael > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1 to the overall idea, though I would limit it to large and/or long-term > > proposals. > > > > I like: > > > > - JIRA for tracking: that's what it does best. > > - Google Docs for detailed commenting and revision - basically a wiki > with > > easier commenting > > - Beam site page for process description and list of current "BIPs", > just > > a one liner and a link to JIRA. A proposal to dev@beam could include a > > link > > to a PR against the asf-site to add the BIP. However, I would agree with > > the counter-argument that this could just be a JIRA component or tag. > > Either one works for me. Or a page with the process that links to a JIRA > > saved search. The more formal list mostly just makes it even more > visible, > > right? > > > > I think that the number can be small. Here are examples scraped from the > > mailing list archives (in random order) and whether I would use a "BIP": > > > > - Runner API: yes > > - Serialization tech: no > > - Dynamic parameters: yes > > - Splittable DoFn: yes > > - Scio: yes > > - Pipeline#waitToFinish(), etc: no > > - DoFn setup / teardown: yes > > - State & Timers: yes > > - Pipeline job naming changes: no > > - CoGBK as primitive: yes > > - New website design: no > > - new DoFn: yes > > - Cluster infrastructure for tests: maybe > > - Beam recipes: no > > - Two spark runners: no > > - Nightly builds by Jenkins: maybe > > > > When I write them all down it really is a lot :-) > > > > Of course, the first thing that could be discussed in a [PROPOSAL] thread > > would be whether to file a "BIP". > > > > Kenn > > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Lukasz Cwik <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 for the cwiki approach that Aljoshca and Ismael gave examples of. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 for a more formal "Improvement Proposals" with ids we can refer > to: > > > > > > > > like Flink does too: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/ > > > > Flink+Improvement+Proposals > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Same think at Karaf: https://cwiki.apache.org/ > > > confluence/display/KARAF/ > > > > > > > > > > Combine with Jira. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 08/08/2016 10:03 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Please have a look at this: > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+ > > > > >> Improvement+Proposals > > > > >> > > > > >> We recently started using this process in Flink and so far are > quite > > > > happy > > > > >> with it. > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 at 06:52 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Good point Ben. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I would say a "discussion" Jira can "evolve" to a implementation > > > "Jira" > > > > >>> (just changing the component). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> WDYT ? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regards > > > > >>> JB > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 08/08/2016 06:50 AM, Ben Chambers wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Would we use the same Jira to track the series of PRs > implementing > > > the > > > > >>>> proposal (if accepted) or would it be discussion only (possibly > > > linked > > > > >>>> to > > > > >>>> the implementation tasks)? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016, 9:48 PM Frances Perry > <[email protected] > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I'm a huge fan of keeping all the details related to a topic in > a > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> relevant > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> jira issue. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Hi guys, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> we have now several technical discussions, sent on the mailing > > > list > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> with > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> link to document for details. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> I think it's not easy for people to follow the different > > > > discussions, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> to look for the e-mail containing the document links. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Of course, it's required to have the discussion on the mailing > > > list > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> (per > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Apache rules). However, maybe it could be helpful to have a > place > > to > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> find > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> open discussions, with the link to the mailing list discussion > > > thread, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> and > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> to the detailed document. > > > > >>>>>> It could be on the website (but maybe not easy to maintain and > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> publish), > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> or on Jira (one Jira per discussion), or a wiki. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> WDYT ? > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Regards > > > > >>>>>> JB > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > >>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > >>>>>> [email protected] > > > > >>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > >>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> -- > > > > >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > >>> [email protected] > > > > >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > -- > > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
