Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

-1 (binding) I agree with Eugene, data loss is severe. As Eugene seems confident to fix that quickly, I think it's worth to cut a RC4. However, I would introduce a deadline. As I would like to propose a release cycle of a release every 6 weeks (whatever it contains, but it really important

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Considering that the holiday is around the corner, it would be nice to release 2.2.0 sooner.  Cheers  Original message From: Chamikara Jayalath Date: 11/10/17 12:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: dev@beam.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0,

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Both issues are particular cases. Can the 2.2.0 be out and a 2.2.1 done quickly after? Would be very appreciated to have the 2.2.0 fixes to not depend on snapshots anymore due to some blockers found in the core of previous releases. Le 10 nov. 2017 21:23, "Chamikara Jayalath"

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

We found another issue that should probably be fixed in 2.2.0 release: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3172 A fix is out for review and will be merged soon. Thanks, Cham On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:43 AM Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > Unfortunately I think I

Re: [DISCUSS] Move away from Apache Maven as build tool

The reason to get it on master is because that is where all the PRs are. An upstream branch without any development means no data. Also, our Jenkins setup via job-dsl doesn't honor using the Jenkins configuration on the branch because the seed job always runs against master. On Thu, Nov 9, 2017

Re: [Proposal] Add performance tests for commonly used file-based I/O PTransforms

Thanks for the update. I will take a look. Regards JB On 11/10/2017 11:43 AM, Kamil Szewczyk wrote: We updated Step #2 in our proposal. Comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. Thanks 2017-10-31 15:42 GMT+01:00 Łukasz Gajowy : We edited the "Roadmap"

Re: [Proposal] Add performance tests for commonly used file-based I/O PTransforms

We updated Step #2 in our proposal. Comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. Thanks 2017-10-31 15:42 GMT+01:00 Łukasz Gajowy : > We edited the "Roadmap" section a little bit to reflect our state of > knowledge. As before, all comments are welcome. > > Thank you

Re: [VOTE] Drop Spark 1.x support to focus on Spark 2.x

I think so ;) Regards JB On 11/10/2017 09:29 AM, Reuven Lax wrote: Sounds good. I doubt we will have much opposition from users, in which case Beam 2.3.0 can deprecate Spark 1.x On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Hi all, thanks a lot for all

Re: [VOTE] Drop Spark 1.x support to focus on Spark 2.x

Sounds good. I doubt we will have much opposition from users, in which case Beam 2.3.0 can deprecate Spark 1.x On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi all, > > thanks a lot for all your feedback. > > The trend is about to upgrade to Spark 2.x and

Jenkins build is back to stable : beam_Release_NightlySnapshot #589

See