Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Robert Bradshaw]

I also have a definite (I guess that's closer to strong that slight)
preference for 2.0.

With version numbers, a gap is less likely to cause trouble than the
ambiguity of an overlap, and easy to document (vs. with ambiguity, one
wouldn't even think to consult the documentation without knowing the
history).

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Pei HE  wrote:
> I vote for 2.0.
>
> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Prabeesh K.  wrote:
>
>> I also vote for 2.0.
>>
>> On 5 May 2017 at 21:33, Hadar Hod  wrote:
>>
>> > I also vote for 2.0, for the same reasons Dan stated.
>> > As Cham mentioned, we can clarify any confusion in the documentation.
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Ahmet Altay 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I would also like to vote for strong 2.0 with the same reasons as Dan
>> > > mentioned. It will be less confusing for the users overall.
>> > >
>> > > Ahmet
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
>> > > > * Aljoscha
>> > > > * Cham
>> > > > * Dan
>> > > > * Luke
>> > > >
>> > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
>> > > > * Davor
>> > > > * Ismael
>> > > > * Kenn
>> > > >
>> > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
>> > > >
>> > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
>> > > > * Amit
>> > > > * Jesse
>> > > > * JB
>> > > > * Manu
>> > > > * Mingmin
>> > > > * Ted
>> > > > * Thomas W.
>> > > >
>> > > > Unbelievably, the tally is 7 : 7. However, the 2.0 camp tends to feel
>> > > more
>> > > > strongly, and we have nobody who feels strongly for 1.0. Thus, it
>> seems
>> > > > going with 2.0.0 is the path of least resistance.
>> > > >
>> > > > With that, I'll start building the 2.0.0 RCs, and we'll formally
>> > > > ratify/reject this decision in an RC vote.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, María García Herrero <
>> > > > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > The bigger letters aimed to indicate "strongly in favor of" as
>> > opposed
>> > > to
>> > > > > "weakly in favor of." I'm OK with not using a doc, just responding
>> to
>> > > > Ted's
>> > > > > question.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu 
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth
>> > > > columns
>> > > > > ?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
>> > > > > > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
>> > > > > > > > > 1ABx3U8ojcfUkFig3hG53lOYl73tdk
>> > > > > > > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
>> > > > > > > .
>> > > > > > > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours
>> > ago
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > responses afterwards.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her
>> > favor.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise <
>> t...@apache.org>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > sent from mobile
>> > > > > > > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" 
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release,
>> but
>> > > fine
>> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > 2.0.0.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <
>> > > > > > da...@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet.
>> > > Let's
>> > > > > > > > > re-examine
>> > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > after some time has passed.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this
>> is
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > summary:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Aljoscha
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Dan
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Pei HE]

I vote for 2.0.

On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Prabeesh K.  wrote:

> I also vote for 2.0.
>
> On 5 May 2017 at 21:33, Hadar Hod  wrote:
>
> > I also vote for 2.0, for the same reasons Dan stated.
> > As Cham mentioned, we can clarify any confusion in the documentation.
> >
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Ahmet Altay 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would also like to vote for strong 2.0 with the same reasons as Dan
> > > mentioned. It will be less confusing for the users overall.
> > >
> > > Ahmet
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > * Cham
> > > > * Dan
> > > > * Luke
> > > >
> > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > * Davor
> > > > * Ismael
> > > > * Kenn
> > > >
> > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > >
> > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > * Amit
> > > > * Jesse
> > > > * JB
> > > > * Manu
> > > > * Mingmin
> > > > * Ted
> > > > * Thomas W.
> > > >
> > > > Unbelievably, the tally is 7 : 7. However, the 2.0 camp tends to feel
> > > more
> > > > strongly, and we have nobody who feels strongly for 1.0. Thus, it
> seems
> > > > going with 2.0.0 is the path of least resistance.
> > > >
> > > > With that, I'll start building the 2.0.0 RCs, and we'll formally
> > > > ratify/reject this decision in an RC vote.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, María García Herrero <
> > > > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The bigger letters aimed to indicate "strongly in favor of" as
> > opposed
> > > to
> > > > > "weakly in favor of." I'm OK with not using a doc, just responding
> to
> > > > Ted's
> > > > > question.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth
> > > > columns
> > > > > ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
> > > > > > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
> > > > > > >  > 1ABx3U8ojcfUkFig3hG53lOYl73tdk
> > > > > > > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours
> > ago
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > responses afterwards.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her
> > favor.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise <
> t...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > sent from mobile
> > > > > > > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release,
> but
> > > fine
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > 2.0.0.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> > > > > > >  > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > > > > > da...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet.
> > > Let's
> > > > > > > > > re-examine
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > > > summary:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Dan
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with
> 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Davor
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with
> 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Amit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * JB
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Ted
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > > 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Prabeesh K.]

I also vote for 2.0.

On 5 May 2017 at 21:33, Hadar Hod  wrote:

> I also vote for 2.0, for the same reasons Dan stated.
> As Cham mentioned, we can clarify any confusion in the documentation.
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Ahmet Altay 
> wrote:
>
> > I would also like to vote for strong 2.0 with the same reasons as Dan
> > mentioned. It will be less confusing for the users overall.
> >
> > Ahmet
> >
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:
> >
> > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > * Aljoscha
> > > * Cham
> > > * Dan
> > > * Luke
> > >
> > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > * Davor
> > > * Ismael
> > > * Kenn
> > >
> > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > >
> > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > * Amit
> > > * Jesse
> > > * JB
> > > * Manu
> > > * Mingmin
> > > * Ted
> > > * Thomas W.
> > >
> > > Unbelievably, the tally is 7 : 7. However, the 2.0 camp tends to feel
> > more
> > > strongly, and we have nobody who feels strongly for 1.0. Thus, it seems
> > > going with 2.0.0 is the path of least resistance.
> > >
> > > With that, I'll start building the 2.0.0 RCs, and we'll formally
> > > ratify/reject this decision in an RC vote.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, María García Herrero <
> > > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The bigger letters aimed to indicate "strongly in favor of" as
> opposed
> > to
> > > > "weakly in favor of." I'm OK with not using a doc, just responding to
> > > Ted's
> > > > question.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth
> > > columns
> > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
> > > > > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
> > > > > >  1ABx3U8ojcfUkFig3hG53lOYl73tdk
> > > > > > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours
> ago
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > responses afterwards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her
> favor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > sent from mobile
> > > > > > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but
> > fine
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > 2.0.0.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> > > > > >  > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > > > > da...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet.
> > Let's
> > > > > > > > re-examine
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is
> > the
> > > > > > > summary:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Dan
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Davor
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Amit
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > > > > > > > > * JB
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Ted
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela <
> > > > > > amitsel...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have
> to
> > > be
> > > > > 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Hadar Hod]

I also vote for 2.0, for the same reasons Dan stated.
As Cham mentioned, we can clarify any confusion in the documentation.

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Ahmet Altay 
wrote:

> I would also like to vote for strong 2.0 with the same reasons as Dan
> mentioned. It will be less confusing for the users overall.
>
> Ahmet
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:
>
> > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > * Aljoscha
> > * Cham
> > * Dan
> > * Luke
> >
> > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > * Davor
> > * Ismael
> > * Kenn
> >
> > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> >
> > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > * Amit
> > * Jesse
> > * JB
> > * Manu
> > * Mingmin
> > * Ted
> > * Thomas W.
> >
> > Unbelievably, the tally is 7 : 7. However, the 2.0 camp tends to feel
> more
> > strongly, and we have nobody who feels strongly for 1.0. Thus, it seems
> > going with 2.0.0 is the path of least resistance.
> >
> > With that, I'll start building the 2.0.0 RCs, and we'll formally
> > ratify/reject this decision in an RC vote.
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, María García Herrero <
> > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > The bigger letters aimed to indicate "strongly in favor of" as opposed
> to
> > > "weakly in favor of." I'm OK with not using a doc, just responding to
> > Ted's
> > > question.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth
> > columns
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
> > > > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
> > > > >  > > > > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
> > > > > .
> > > > > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > responses afterwards.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > sent from mobile
> > > > > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but
> fine
> > > > with
> > > > > > > 2.0.0.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> > > > >  > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > > > > > >  > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > > > da...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet.
> Let's
> > > > > > > re-examine
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is
> the
> > > > > > summary:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > > > * Dan
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > * Davor
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > * Amit
> > > > > > > > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > > > > > > > * JB
> > > > > > > > > > > * Ted
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela <
> > > > > amitsel...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to
> > be
> > > > very
> > > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > mature
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than
> > > > others,
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > YARN better than 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Ahmet Altay]

I would also like to vote for strong 2.0 with the same reasons as Dan
mentioned. It will be less confusing for the users overall.

Ahmet

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:

> Strongly for 2.0.0:
> * Aljoscha
> * Cham
> * Dan
> * Luke
>
> Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> * Davor
> * Ismael
> * Kenn
>
> Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
>
> Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> * Amit
> * Jesse
> * JB
> * Manu
> * Mingmin
> * Ted
> * Thomas W.
>
> Unbelievably, the tally is 7 : 7. However, the 2.0 camp tends to feel more
> strongly, and we have nobody who feels strongly for 1.0. Thus, it seems
> going with 2.0.0 is the path of least resistance.
>
> With that, I'll start building the 2.0.0 RCs, and we'll formally
> ratify/reject this decision in an RC vote.
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, María García Herrero <
> mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The bigger letters aimed to indicate "strongly in favor of" as opposed to
> > "weakly in favor of." I'm OK with not using a doc, just responding to
> Ted's
> > question.
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> >
> > > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth
> columns
> > ?
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
> > > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
> > > >  > > > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
> > > > .
> > > > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago
> and
> > > the
> > > > responses afterwards.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
> > > > >
> > > > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > sent from mobile
> > > > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine
> > > with
> > > > > > 2.0.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> > > >  > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > > > > >  > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > > da...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's
> > > > > > re-examine
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the
> > > > > summary:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > > * Dan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > * Davor
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > * Amit
> > > > > > > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > > > > > > * JB
> > > > > > > > > > * Ted
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela <
> > > > amitsel...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to
> be
> > > very
> > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK
> is
> > > not
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > mature
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than
> > > others,
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > YARN better than others, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community
> > > usually
> > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long
> as
> > > we
> > > > do
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu <
> > yuzhih...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Davor Bonaci]

Strongly for 2.0.0:
* Aljoscha
* Cham
* Dan
* Luke

Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
* Davor
* Ismael
* Kenn

Strongly for 1.0.0: none.

Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
* Amit
* Jesse
* JB
* Manu
* Mingmin
* Ted
* Thomas W.

Unbelievably, the tally is 7 : 7. However, the 2.0 camp tends to feel more
strongly, and we have nobody who feels strongly for 1.0. Thus, it seems
going with 2.0.0 is the path of least resistance.

With that, I'll start building the 2.0.0 RCs, and we'll formally
ratify/reject this decision in an RC vote.

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, María García Herrero <
mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:

> The bigger letters aimed to indicate "strongly in favor of" as opposed to
> "weakly in favor of." I'm OK with not using a doc, just responding to Ted's
> question.
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
>
> > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth columns
> ?
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
> > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
> > >  > > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
> > > .
> > > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago and
> > the
> > > responses afterwards.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
> > > >
> > > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > sent from mobile
> > > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine
> > with
> > > > > 2.0.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> > >  > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > > > >  > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > da...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's
> > > > > re-examine
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the
> > > > summary:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > * Dan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > * Davor
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > * Amit
> > > > > > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > > > > > * JB
> > > > > > > > > * Ted
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela <
> > > amitsel...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be
> > very
> > > > > clear
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is
> > not
> > > as
> > > > > > > mature
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than
> > others,
> > > > some
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > YARN better than others, etc.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community
> > usually
> > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as
> > we
> > > do
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu <
> yuzhih...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out
> > more
> > > > use
> > > > > > > > > scenarios
> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what
> is
> > > > > > released
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > indeed stable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0
> > > release
> > > > > > > compared
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.0 release.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[María García Herrero]

The bigger letters aimed to indicate "strongly in favor of" as opposed to
"weakly in favor of." I'm OK with not using a doc, just responding to Ted's
question.

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:

> What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth columns ?
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
> mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
> >  > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
> > .
> > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago and
> the
> > responses afterwards.
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
> > >
> > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > sent from mobile
> > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine
> with
> > > > 2.0.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> >  > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > > >  > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> da...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's
> > > > re-examine
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the
> > > summary:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > * Dan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > > * Davor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > * Amit
> > > > > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > > > > * JB
> > > > > > > > * Ted
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela <
> > amitsel...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be
> very
> > > > clear
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is
> not
> > as
> > > > > > mature
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than
> others,
> > > some
> > > > > run
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > YARN better than others, etc.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community
> usually
> > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as
> we
> > do
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out
> more
> > > use
> > > > > > > > scenarios
> > > > > > > > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is
> > > > > released
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > indeed stable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0
> > release
> > > > > > compared
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > 1.0 release.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > > da...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this
> topic.
> > > > This
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to
> > > rephrase
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > > once to see whether a consensus is possible.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone
> > think
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on,
> in
> > > your
> > > > > > > > opinion,
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the
> > > > negative
> > > > > > > impact
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the less desirable alternative please?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Manu Zhang]

Slight preference for 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0

Thanks,
Manu

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 7:24 AM Chamikara Jayalath 
wrote:

> +1 for 2.0.0 for following reason.
>
> I think the main Downside for using 2.0.0 is the fact that people
> incorrectly assuming this to be the second stable release. This can be
> easily clarified through documentation. I think Beam is more mature than a
> product that is moving from an unstable 0.9 to the first stable 1.0.0
> release.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Thanks,
> Cham
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:47 PM Davor Bonaci  wrote:
>
> > Let's not use the side document, please. The document has to be
> > world-writable, and accidental changes can occur.
> >
> > I'd kindly ask to use email for this one, as usual, to keep a record (in
> > this specific case).
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> >
> > > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth
> columns
> > ?
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
> > > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
> > > >  > > > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
> > > > .
> > > > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago
> and
> > > the
> > > > responses afterwards.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
> > > > >
> > > > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > sent from mobile
> > > > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine
> > > with
> > > > > > 2.0.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> > > >  > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > > > > >  > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > > da...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's
> > > > > > re-examine
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the
> > > > > summary:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > > * Dan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > * Davor
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > > * Amit
> > > > > > > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > > > > > > * JB
> > > > > > > > > > * Ted
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela <
> > > > amitsel...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to
> be
> > > very
> > > > > > clear
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK
> is
> > > not
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > mature
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than
> > > others,
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > YARN better than others, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community
> > > usually
> > > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long
> as
> > > we
> > > > do
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu <
> > yuzhih...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying
> out
> > > more
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > scenarios
> > > > > > > > > > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure
> what
> > is
> > > > > > > released
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > indeed 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Chamikara Jayalath]

+1 for 2.0.0 for following reason.

I think the main Downside for using 2.0.0 is the fact that people
incorrectly assuming this to be the second stable release. This can be
easily clarified through documentation. I think Beam is more mature than a
product that is moving from an unstable 0.9 to the first stable 1.0.0
release.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks,
Cham



On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:47 PM Davor Bonaci  wrote:

> Let's not use the side document, please. The document has to be
> world-writable, and accidental changes can occur.
>
> I'd kindly ask to use email for this one, as usual, to keep a record (in
> this specific case).
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
>
> > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth columns
> ?
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
> > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
> > >  > > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
> > > .
> > > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago and
> > the
> > > responses afterwards.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
> > > >
> > > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > sent from mobile
> > > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine
> > with
> > > > > 2.0.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> > >  > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > > > >  > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > da...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's
> > > > > re-examine
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the
> > > > summary:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > * Dan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > * Davor
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > > * Amit
> > > > > > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > > > > > * JB
> > > > > > > > > * Ted
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela <
> > > amitsel...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be
> > very
> > > > > clear
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is
> > not
> > > as
> > > > > > > mature
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than
> > others,
> > > > some
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > YARN better than others, etc.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community
> > usually
> > > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as
> > we
> > > do
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu <
> yuzhih...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out
> > more
> > > > use
> > > > > > > > > scenarios
> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what
> is
> > > > > > released
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > indeed stable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0
> > > release
> > > > > > > compared
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.0 release.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > > > da...@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this
> > 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Davor Bonaci]

Let's not use the side document, please. The document has to be
world-writable, and accidental changes can occur.

I'd kindly ask to use email for this one, as usual, to keep a record (in
this specific case).

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:

> What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth columns ?
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
> mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
> >  > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
> > .
> > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago and
> the
> > responses afterwards.
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
> > >
> > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > sent from mobile
> > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine
> with
> > > > 2.0.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
> >  > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > > >  > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> da...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's
> > > > re-examine
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the
> > > summary:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > * Dan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > > * Davor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > * Amit
> > > > > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > > > > * JB
> > > > > > > > * Ted
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela <
> > amitsel...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be
> very
> > > > clear
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is
> not
> > as
> > > > > > mature
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than
> others,
> > > some
> > > > > run
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > YARN better than others, etc.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community
> usually
> > > > > expects
> > > > > > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as
> we
> > do
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out
> more
> > > use
> > > > > > > > scenarios
> > > > > > > > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is
> > > > > released
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > indeed stable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0
> > release
> > > > > > compared
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > 1.0 release.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > > da...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this
> topic.
> > > > This
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to
> > > rephrase
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > > once to see whether a consensus is possible.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone
> > think
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on,
> in
> > > your
> > > > > > > > opinion,
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the
> > > > negative
> > > > > > > impact
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the less desirable 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Ted Yu]

What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth columns ?

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero <
mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote:

> Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here
>  Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing>
> .
> I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago and the
> responses afterwards.
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
>
> > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.
> >
> > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor.
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> >
> > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
> > >
> > > --
> > > sent from mobile
> > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine with
> > > 2.0.0.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik
>  > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > >  > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's
> > > re-examine
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the
> > summary:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > > > * Dan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > * Davor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > * Amit
> > > > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > > > * JB
> > > > > > > * Ted
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela <
> amitsel...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be very
> > > clear
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is not
> as
> > > > > mature
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than others,
> > some
> > > > run
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > YARN better than others, etc.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community usually
> > > > expects
> > > > > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as we
> do
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more
> > use
> > > > > > > scenarios
> > > > > > > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is
> > > > released
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > indeed stable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0
> release
> > > > > compared
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > 1.0 release.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci <
> > da...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic.
> > > This
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to
> > rephrase
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > > > once to see whether a consensus is possible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone
> think
> > > the
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in
> > your
> > > > > > > opinion,
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the
> > > negative
> > > > > > impact
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the less desirable alternative please?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a
> > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > > > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away
> > > from
> > > > > > > weighing
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > on this topic.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > > > > > aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally
> > > makes
> > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Ted Yu]

Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps.

Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor.

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise  wrote:

> I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
>
> --
> sent from mobile
> On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu"  wrote:
>
> > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine with
> 2.0.0.
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles
>  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's
> re-examine
> > > this
> > > > > after some time has passed.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the summary:
> > > > >
> > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > > * Dan
> > > > >
> > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > > * Davor
> > > > >
> > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > > >
> > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > > * Amit
> > > > > * Jesse
> > > > > * JB
> > > > > * Ted
> > > > >
> > > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Davor
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be very
> clear
> > > on
> > > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is not as
> > > mature
> > > > as
> > > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than others, some
> > run
> > > > on
> > > > > > YARN better than others, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community usually
> > expects
> > > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as we do
> > some
> > > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use
> > > > > scenarios
> > > > > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is
> > released
> > > is
> > > > > > > indeed stable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release
> > > compared
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > 1.0 release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic.
> This
> > > > issue
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase
> > the
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > once to see whether a consensus is possible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think
> the
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your
> > > > > opinion,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the
> negative
> > > > impact
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the less desirable alternative please?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a
> > > possible
> > > > > > > > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away
> from
> > > > > weighing
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > on this topic.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > > > aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally
> makes
> > > > sense
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision
> > the
> > > > > > > confusion
> > > > > > > > > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > > > j...@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Davor,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more
> > > sense.
> > > > We
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing
> > > > > > Dataflow).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0,
> in
> > > > order
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow,
> > > 2.0.0
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > help.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would
> understand
> > > > > > starting
> > > > > > > > > > from 2.0.0.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Ismaël Mejía]

My vote, like Davor:
Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Thomas Weise  wrote:
> I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.
>
> --
> sent from mobile
> On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu"  wrote:
>
>> I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine with 2.0.0.
>>
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'll join Davor's group.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's re-examine
>> > this
>> > > > after some time has passed.
>> > > >
>> > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the summary:
>> > > >
>> > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
>> > > > * Aljoscha
>> > > > * Dan
>> > > >
>> > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
>> > > > * Davor
>> > > >
>> > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
>> > > >
>> > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
>> > > > * Amit
>> > > > * Jesse
>> > > > * JB
>> > > > * Ted
>> > > >
>> > > > Any additional opinions?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks!
>> > > >
>> > > > Davor
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela 
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be very clear
>> > on
>> > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is not as
>> > mature
>> > > as
>> > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than others, some
>> run
>> > > on
>> > > > > YARN better than others, etc.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community usually
>> expects
>> > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as we do
>> some
>> > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu  wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use
>> > > > scenarios
>> > > > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is
>> released
>> > is
>> > > > > > indeed stable.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release
>> > compared
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > 1.0 release.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This
>> > > issue
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase
>> the
>> > > > > question
>> > > > > > > once to see whether a consensus is possible.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the
>> > > > project
>> > > > > > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your
>> > > > opinion,
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the negative
>> > > impact
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > the less desirable alternative please?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a
>> > possible
>> > > > > > > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away from
>> > > > weighing
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > on this topic.)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>> > > > aljos...@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes
>> > > sense
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision
>> the
>> > > > > > confusion
>> > > > > > > > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> > > j...@nanthrax.net>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Hi Davor,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more
>> > sense.
>> > > We
>> > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing
>> > > > > Dataflow).
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in
>> > > order
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow,
>> > 2.0.0
>> > > > > could
>> > > > > > > > help.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand
>> > > > > starting
>> > > > > > > > > from 2.0.0.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Regards
>> > > > > > > > > JB
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide
>> > goal;
>> > > > see
>> > > > 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Thomas Weise]

I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp.

--
sent from mobile
On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu"  wrote:

> I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine with 2.0.0.
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik 
> wrote:
>
> > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll join Davor's group.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's re-examine
> > this
> > > > after some time has passed.
> > > >
> > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the summary:
> > > >
> > > > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > > > * Aljoscha
> > > > * Dan
> > > >
> > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > > > * Davor
> > > >
> > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> > > >
> > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > > > * Amit
> > > > * Jesse
> > > > * JB
> > > > * Ted
> > > >
> > > > Any additional opinions?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Davor
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be very clear
> > on
> > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is not as
> > mature
> > > as
> > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than others, some
> run
> > > on
> > > > > YARN better than others, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community usually
> expects
> > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as we do
> some
> > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use
> > > > scenarios
> > > > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is
> released
> > is
> > > > > > indeed stable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release
> > compared
> > > > to
> > > > > > 1.0 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This
> > > issue
> > > > is
> > > > > > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase
> the
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > once to see whether a consensus is possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the
> > > > project
> > > > > > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your
> > > > opinion,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the negative
> > > impact
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the less desirable alternative please?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a
> > possible
> > > > > > > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away from
> > > > weighing
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > on this topic.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > > aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes
> > > sense
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision
> the
> > > > > > confusion
> > > > > > > > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > > j...@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Davor,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more
> > sense.
> > > We
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing
> > > > > Dataflow).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in
> > > order
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow,
> > 2.0.0
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > > help.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand
> > > > > starting
> > > > > > > > > from 2.0.0.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > JB
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide
> > goal;
> > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the
> first
> > > > stable
> > > > > > > > > release"
> > > > > > > > > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or
> > > something
> > > > > > else,
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Lukasz Cwik]

Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles 
wrote:

> I'll join Davor's group.
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:
>
> > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's re-examine this
> > after some time has passed.
> >
> > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the summary:
> >
> > Strongly for 2.0.0:
> > * Aljoscha
> > * Dan
> >
> > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> > * Davor
> >
> > Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
> >
> > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> > * Amit
> > * Jesse
> > * JB
> > * Ted
> >
> > Any additional opinions?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Davor
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela  wrote:
> >
> > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be very clear on
> > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is not as mature
> as
> > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than others, some run
> on
> > > YARN better than others, etc.
> > >
> > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community usually expects
> > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as we do some
> > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use
> > scenarios
> > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is released is
> > > > indeed stable.
> > > >
> > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release compared
> > to
> > > > 1.0 release.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This
> issue
> > is
> > > > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase the
> > > question
> > > > > once to see whether a consensus is possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the
> > project
> > > > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your
> > opinion,
> > > > the
> > > > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the negative
> impact
> > > of
> > > > > the less desirable alternative please?
> > > > >
> > > > > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a possible
> > > > > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away from
> > weighing
> > > > in
> > > > > on this topic.)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes
> sense
> > > for
> > > > > > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision the
> > > > confusion
> > > > > > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> j...@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Davor,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense.
> We
> > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing
> > > Dataflow).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in
> order
> > > to
> > > > > > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0
> > > could
> > > > > > help.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand
> > > starting
> > > > > > > from 2.0.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > JB
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > > > > > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal;
> > see
> > > > > > > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first
> > stable
> > > > > > > release"
> > > > > > > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or
> something
> > > > else,
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a
> consensus-based
> > > > > decision
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > this matter.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate
> > > > designation
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on
> it. A
> > > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are
> others.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> > > > > > > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> > > > > > > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs
> > > carrying
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same number.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken --
> > > continuing
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > version numbering 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Kenneth Knowles]

I'll join Davor's group.

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:

> I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's re-examine this
> after some time has passed.
>
> If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the summary:
>
> Strongly for 2.0.0:
> * Aljoscha
> * Dan
>
> Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
> * Davor
>
> Strongly for 1.0.0: none.
>
> Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
> * Amit
> * Jesse
> * JB
> * Ted
>
> Any additional opinions?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Davor
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela  wrote:
>
> > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be very clear on
> > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is not as mature as
> > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than others, some run on
> > YARN better than others, etc.
> >
> > My only reservation here is that the Apache community usually expects
> > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as we do some
> > "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu  wrote:
> >
> > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use
> scenarios
> > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is released is
> > > indeed stable.
> > >
> > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release compared
> to
> > > 1.0 release.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:
> > >
> > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This issue
> is
> > > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase the
> > question
> > > > once to see whether a consensus is possible.
> > > >
> > > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the
> project
> > > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your
> opinion,
> > > the
> > > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the negative impact
> > of
> > > > the less desirable alternative please?
> > > >
> > > > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a possible
> > > > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away from
> weighing
> > > in
> > > > on this topic.)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes sense
> > for
> > > > > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision the
> > > confusion
> > > > > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Davor,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We
> > > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing
> > Dataflow).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order
> > to
> > > > > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0
> > could
> > > > > help.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand
> > starting
> > > > > > from 2.0.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > JB
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > > > > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal;
> see
> > > > > > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first
> stable
> > > > > > release"
> > > > > > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something
> > > else,
> > > > to
> > > > > > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based
> > > > decision
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > this matter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate
> > > designation
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A
> > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1.0.0:
> > > > > > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> > > > > > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> > > > > > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs
> > carrying
> > > > the
> > > > > > > same number.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2.0.0:
> > > > > > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken --
> > continuing
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
> > > > > > > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
> > > > > > > * May be unexpected to some users.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences --
> > > names
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > important and well correlated with success. Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] 

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Davor Bonaci]

I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's re-examine this
after some time has passed.

If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the summary:

Strongly for 2.0.0:
* Aljoscha
* Dan

Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0:
* Davor

Strongly for 1.0.0: none.

Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0:
* Amit
* Jesse
* JB
* Ted

Any additional opinions?

Thanks!

Davor

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela  wrote:

> If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be very clear on
> maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is not as mature as
> Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than others, some run on
> YARN better than others, etc.
>
> My only reservation here is that the Apache community usually expects
> version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as we do some
> "maturity-analysis" and document properly.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu  wrote:
>
> > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use scenarios
> > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is released is
> > indeed stable.
> >
> > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release compared to
> > 1.0 release.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:
> >
> > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This issue is
> > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase the
> question
> > > once to see whether a consensus is possible.
> > >
> > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the project
> > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your opinion,
> > the
> > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the negative impact
> of
> > > the less desirable alternative please?
> > >
> > > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a possible
> > > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away from weighing
> > in
> > > on this topic.)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes sense
> for
> > > > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision the
> > confusion
> > > > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Davor,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing
> Dataflow).
> > > > >
> > > > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order
> to
> > > > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0
> could
> > > > help.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand
> starting
> > > > > from 2.0.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > JB
> > > > >
> > > > > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > > > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see
> > > > > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable
> > > > > release"
> > > > > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something
> > else,
> > > to
> > > > > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based
> > > decision
> > > > > on
> > > > > > this matter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate
> > designation
> > > > for
> > > > > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A
> > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1.0.0:
> > > > > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> > > > > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> > > > > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs
> carrying
> > > the
> > > > > > same number.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2.0.0:
> > > > > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken --
> continuing
> > > > their
> > > > > > version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
> > > > > > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
> > > > > > * May be unexpected to some users.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences --
> > names
> > > > are
> > > > > > important and well correlated with success. Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Davor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> > > > c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629
> > > > > > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > > > > jbono...@apache.org
> > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Amit Sela]

If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be very clear on
maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is not as mature as
Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than others, some run on
YARN better than others, etc.

My only reservation here is that the Apache community usually expects
version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as we do some
"maturity-analysis" and document properly.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu  wrote:

> If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use scenarios
> e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is released is
> indeed stable.
>
> Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release compared to
> 1.0 release.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:
>
> > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This issue is
> > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase the question
> > once to see whether a consensus is possible.
> >
> > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the project
> > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your opinion,
> the
> > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the negative impact of
> > the less desirable alternative please?
> >
> > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a possible
> > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away from weighing
> in
> > on this topic.)
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes sense for
> > > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision the
> confusion
> > > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Davor,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We
> have
> > a
> > > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing Dataflow).
> > > >
> > > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order to
> > > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0 could
> > > help.
> > > >
> > > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand starting
> > > > from 2.0.0.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see
> > > > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable
> > > > release"
> > > > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something
> else,
> > to
> > > > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based
> > decision
> > > > on
> > > > > this matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate
> designation
> > > for
> > > > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A
> > > > reasonable
> > > > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.0.0:
> > > > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> > > > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> > > > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying
> > the
> > > > > same number.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.0.0:
> > > > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing
> > > their
> > > > > version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
> > > > > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
> > > > > * May be unexpected to some users.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences --
> names
> > > are
> > > > > important and well correlated with success. Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Davor
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> > > c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629
> > > > > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > > > jbono...@apache.org
> > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Ted Yu]

If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out more use scenarios
e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what is released is
indeed stable.

Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 release compared to
1.0 release.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:

> It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This issue is
> probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase the question
> once to see whether a consensus is possible.
>
> Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the project
> would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your opinion, the
> less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the negative impact of
> the less desirable alternative please?
>
> (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a possible
> consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away from weighing in
> on this topic.)
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 
> wrote:
>
> > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes sense for
> > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision the confusion
> > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5.
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Davor,
> > >
> > >
> > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We have
> a
> > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing Dataflow).
> > >
> > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order to
> > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0 could
> > help.
> > >
> > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand starting
> > > from 2.0.0.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see
> > > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable
> > > release"
> > > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else,
> to
> > > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based
> decision
> > > on
> > > > this matter.
> > > >
> > > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate designation
> > for
> > > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A
> > > reasonable
> > > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.
> > > >
> > > > 1.0.0:
> > > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> > > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> > > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying
> the
> > > > same number.
> > > >
> > > > 2.0.0:
> > > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing
> > their
> > > > version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
> > > > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
> > > > * May be unexpected to some users.
> > > >
> > > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- names
> > are
> > > > important and well correlated with success. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Davor
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> > c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629
> > > > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > > jbono...@apache.org
> > > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> > >
> >
>

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Davor Bonaci]

It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this topic. This issue is
probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to rephrase the question
once to see whether a consensus is possible.

Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone think the project
would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, in your opinion, the
less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the negative impact of
the less desirable alternative please?

(I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I think a possible
consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay away from weighing in
on this topic.)

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 
wrote:

> I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes sense for
> people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision the confusion
> between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5.
>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
>
> > Hi Davor,
> >
> >
> > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We have a
> > fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing Dataflow).
> >
> > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order to
> > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0 could
> help.
> >
> > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand starting
> > from 2.0.0.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see
> > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable
> > release"
> > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else, to
> > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based decision
> > on
> > > this matter.
> > >
> > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate designation
> for
> > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A
> > reasonable
> > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.
> > >
> > > 1.0.0:
> > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying the
> > > same number.
> > >
> > > 2.0.0:
> > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing
> their
> > > version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
> > > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
> > > * May be unexpected to some users.
> > >
> > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- names
> are
> > > important and well correlated with success. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Davor
> > >
> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629
> > > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > jbono...@apache.org
> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >
>

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Aljoscha Krettek]

I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It totally makes sense for
people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already envision the confusion
between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:

> Hi Davor,
>
>
> For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We have a
> fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing Dataflow).
>
> However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order to
> avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0 could help.
>
> I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand starting
> from 2.0.0.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see
> > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable
> release"
> > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else, to
> > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based decision
> on
> > this matter.
> >
> > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate designation for
> > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A
> reasonable
> > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.
> >
> > 1.0.0:
> > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> > * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying the
> > same number.
> >
> > 2.0.0:
> > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing their
> > version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
> > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
> > * May be unexpected to some users.
> >
> > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- names are
> > important and well correlated with success. Thanks!
> >
> > Davor
> >
> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629
> > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbono...@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Hi Davor,


For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We have a 
fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing Dataflow).


However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order to 
avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0 could help.


I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would understand starting 
from 2.0.0.


Regards
JB

On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:

The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see
discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable release"
for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else, to
make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based decision on
this matter.

I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate designation for
our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A reasonable
choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.

1.0.0:
* It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
* Most people would expect it, I suppose.
* A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying the
same number.

2.0.0:
* Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing their
version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
* Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
* May be unexpected to some users.

I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- names are
important and well correlated with success. Thanks!

Davor

[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629
9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E



--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Ted Yu]

The following explanation for adopting 2.0 version should be put in release
notes for the stable release.

Cheers

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Dan Halperin 
wrote:

> A large set of Beam users will be coming from the pre-Apache technologies
> (aka Google Cloud Dataflow, Scio). Because Dataflow was 1.0 before Beam
> started, there is a lot of pre-existing documentation, Stack Overflow, etc.
> that refers to version 1.0 to mean what is now a year-and-a-half old
> release.
>
> I think starting Beam from "2.0.0" will be best for that set of users and
> frankly also new ones -- this will make it unambiguous whether referring to
> pre-Beam or Beam releases.
>
> I understand the 1.0 motivation -- it's cleaner in isolation -- but I think
> it would lead to long-term confusion in the user community.
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:
>
> > +1 to what Jesse and Amit said.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Amit Sela  wrote:
> >
> > > I think 1.0.0 for a couple of reasons:
> > >
> > > * It makes sense coming after 0.X (+1 Jesse).
> > > * It is the FIRST stable release as a project, regardless of its roots.
> > > * while the SDK is definitely a 2.0.0, Beam is not made only of the
> SDK,
> > > and I hope we'll have more milage with users running all sorts of
> runners
> > > in production before our 2.0.0 release.
> > >
> > > Amit.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:25 PM Jesse Anderson 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think 1.0 makes the most sense.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 10:57 AM Davor Bonaci  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see
> > > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable
> > > release"
> > > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else,
> to
> > > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based
> decision
> > > on
> > > > this matter.
> > > >
> > > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate designation
> > for
> > > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A
> > > reasonable
> > > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.
> > > >
> > > > 1.0.0:
> > > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> > > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> > > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying
> the
> > > > same number.
> > > >
> > > > 2.0.0:
> > > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing
> > their
> > > > version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
> > > > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
> > > > * May be unexpected to some users.
> > > >
> > > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- names
> > are
> > > > important and well correlated with success. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Davor
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c35067071aec9029d9100ae
> > 973c629
> > > > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Dan Halperin]

A large set of Beam users will be coming from the pre-Apache technologies
(aka Google Cloud Dataflow, Scio). Because Dataflow was 1.0 before Beam
started, there is a lot of pre-existing documentation, Stack Overflow, etc.
that refers to version 1.0 to mean what is now a year-and-a-half old
release.

I think starting Beam from "2.0.0" will be best for that set of users and
frankly also new ones -- this will make it unambiguous whether referring to
pre-Beam or Beam releases.

I understand the 1.0 motivation -- it's cleaner in isolation -- but I think
it would lead to long-term confusion in the user community.

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Ted Yu  wrote:

> +1 to what Jesse and Amit said.
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Amit Sela  wrote:
>
> > I think 1.0.0 for a couple of reasons:
> >
> > * It makes sense coming after 0.X (+1 Jesse).
> > * It is the FIRST stable release as a project, regardless of its roots.
> > * while the SDK is definitely a 2.0.0, Beam is not made only of the SDK,
> > and I hope we'll have more milage with users running all sorts of runners
> > in production before our 2.0.0 release.
> >
> > Amit.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:25 PM Jesse Anderson 
> > wrote:
> >
> > I think 1.0 makes the most sense.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 10:57 AM Davor Bonaci  wrote:
> >
> > > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see
> > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable
> > release"
> > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else, to
> > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based decision
> > on
> > > this matter.
> > >
> > > I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate designation
> for
> > > our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A
> > reasonable
> > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.
> > >
> > > 1.0.0:
> > > * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying the
> > > same number.
> > >
> > > 2.0.0:
> > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing
> their
> > > version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
> > > * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
> > > * May be unexpected to some users.
> > >
> > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- names
> are
> > > important and well correlated with success. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Davor
> > >
> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c35067071aec9029d9100ae
> 973c629
> > > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> > >
> >
>

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Amit Sela]

I think 1.0.0 for a couple of reasons:

* It makes sense coming after 0.X (+1 Jesse).
* It is the FIRST stable release as a project, regardless of its roots.
* while the SDK is definitely a 2.0.0, Beam is not made only of the SDK,
and I hope we'll have more milage with users running all sorts of runners
in production before our 2.0.0 release.

Amit.

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:25 PM Jesse Anderson 
wrote:

I think 1.0 makes the most sense.

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 10:57 AM Davor Bonaci  wrote:

> The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see
> discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable release"
> for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else, to
> make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based decision on
> this matter.
>
> I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate designation for
> our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A reasonable
> choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.
>
> 1.0.0:
> * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying the
> same number.
>
> 2.0.0:
> * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing their
> version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
> * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
> * May be unexpected to some users.
>
> I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- names are
> important and well correlated with success. Thanks!
>
> Davor
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629
> 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>

Re: First stable release: version designation?

[Jesse Anderson]

I think 1.0 makes the most sense.

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 10:57 AM Davor Bonaci  wrote:

> The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see
> discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable release"
> for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else, to
> make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based decision on
> this matter.
>
> I think that now is the time to consider the appropriate designation for
> our first stable release, and formally make a decision on it. A reasonable
> choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps there are others.
>
> 1.0.0:
> * It logically comes after the current series, 0.x.y.
> * Most people would expect it, I suppose.
> * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs and Beam SDKs carrying the
> same number.
>
> 2.0.0:
> * Follows the pattern some other projects have taken -- continuing their
> version numbering scheme from their previous origin.
> * Better communicates project's roots, and degree of maturity.
> * May be unexpected to some users.
>
> I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and preferences -- names are
> important and well correlated with success. Thanks!
>
> Davor
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629
> 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>