Re: [dev] Announcing 0.1.0-incubating release
Definitely a good question for our future FAQ: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-161 ;) On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:06 PM, James Malone < jamesmal...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi Amir, > > That is a good question! To keep this thread clean (and focused) I'm going > to write a response to your question in a new thread. Be on the lookout for > it in a few minutes. > > Cheers! > > James > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:11 PM, amir bahmanyari < > amirto...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Great and Congrats to all colleagues..I have a novice question.From > > Andrew's PP presentation in NY he sent yesterday: "In 2014, Google > > announced Google Cloud Dataflow""In January 2016, Google, along with a > > handful of partners donated this programming model to the Apache Software > > Foundation, as the incubating project Apache Beam." > > Why is still "Google Cloud Dataflow" included in the Beam release if Beam > > is indeed an evolution (super-set?) of "Google Cloud Dataflow".Thanks > > +regards,Amir- > > > > From: Amit Sela > > To: dev@beam.incubator.apache.org > > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 11:32 AM > > Subject: Re: [dev] Announcing 0.1.0-incubating release > > > > And thanks to you Davor for leading the release! > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 21:03 Davor Bonaci > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > I’m happy to announce that we have completed our first release – > version > > > 0.1.0-incubating is now available [1]. > > > > > > I'm thrilled about this -- it is an exciting milestone for the project! > > > > > > I'd like to thank *all* contributors [2] -- this milestone is a result > > of a > > > truly great work by the entire community. Special thanks goes to > Frances > > > Perry, Dan Halperin and, of course, our mentor Jean-Baptiste Onofré, > who > > > was instrumental with his guidance on the Apache way. > > > > > > Davor > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://beam.incubator.apache.org/beam/release/2016/06/15/first-release.html > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/graphs/contributors?from=2016-02-26&to=2016-06-15&type=c > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [dev] Announcing 0.1.0-incubating release
Hi Amir, That is a good question! To keep this thread clean (and focused) I'm going to write a response to your question in a new thread. Be on the lookout for it in a few minutes. Cheers! James On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:11 PM, amir bahmanyari < amirto...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Great and Congrats to all colleagues..I have a novice question.From > Andrew's PP presentation in NY he sent yesterday: "In 2014, Google > announced Google Cloud Dataflow""In January 2016, Google, along with a > handful of partners donated this programming model to the Apache Software > Foundation, as the incubating project Apache Beam." > Why is still "Google Cloud Dataflow" included in the Beam release if Beam > is indeed an evolution (super-set?) of "Google Cloud Dataflow".Thanks > +regards,Amir- > > From: Amit Sela > To: dev@beam.incubator.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 11:32 AM > Subject: Re: [dev] Announcing 0.1.0-incubating release > > And thanks to you Davor for leading the release! > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 21:03 Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > I’m happy to announce that we have completed our first release – version > > 0.1.0-incubating is now available [1]. > > > > I'm thrilled about this -- it is an exciting milestone for the project! > > > > I'd like to thank *all* contributors [2] -- this milestone is a result > of a > > truly great work by the entire community. Special thanks goes to Frances > > Perry, Dan Halperin and, of course, our mentor Jean-Baptiste Onofré, who > > was instrumental with his guidance on the Apache way. > > > > Davor > > > > [1] > > > > > https://beam.incubator.apache.org/beam/release/2016/06/15/first-release.html > > [2] > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/graphs/contributors?from=2016-02-26&to=2016-06-15&type=c > > > > >
Re: [dev] Announcing 0.1.0-incubating release
Great and Congrats to all colleagues..I have a novice question.From Andrew's PP presentation in NY he sent yesterday: "In 2014, Google announced Google Cloud Dataflow""In January 2016, Google, along with a handful of partners donated this programming model to the Apache Software Foundation, as the incubating project Apache Beam." Why is still "Google Cloud Dataflow" included in the Beam release if Beam is indeed an evolution (super-set?) of "Google Cloud Dataflow".Thanks +regards,Amir- From: Amit Sela To: dev@beam.incubator.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [dev] Announcing 0.1.0-incubating release And thanks to you Davor for leading the release! On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 21:03 Davor Bonaci wrote: > Hi everyone, > I’m happy to announce that we have completed our first release – version > 0.1.0-incubating is now available [1]. > > I'm thrilled about this -- it is an exciting milestone for the project! > > I'd like to thank *all* contributors [2] -- this milestone is a result of a > truly great work by the entire community. Special thanks goes to Frances > Perry, Dan Halperin and, of course, our mentor Jean-Baptiste Onofré, who > was instrumental with his guidance on the Apache way. > > Davor > > [1] > > https://beam.incubator.apache.org/beam/release/2016/06/15/first-release.html > [2] > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/graphs/contributors?from=2016-02-26&to=2016-06-15&type=c >
Re: [dev] Announcing 0.1.0-incubating release
And thanks to you Davor for leading the release! On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 21:03 Davor Bonaci wrote: > Hi everyone, > I’m happy to announce that we have completed our first release – version > 0.1.0-incubating is now available [1]. > > I'm thrilled about this -- it is an exciting milestone for the project! > > I'd like to thank *all* contributors [2] -- this milestone is a result of a > truly great work by the entire community. Special thanks goes to Frances > Perry, Dan Halperin and, of course, our mentor Jean-Baptiste Onofré, who > was instrumental with his guidance on the Apache way. > > Davor > > [1] > > https://beam.incubator.apache.org/beam/release/2016/06/15/first-release.html > [2] > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/graphs/contributors?from=2016-02-26&to=2016-06-15&type=c >
[dev] Announcing 0.1.0-incubating release
Hi everyone, I’m happy to announce that we have completed our first release – version 0.1.0-incubating is now available [1]. I'm thrilled about this -- it is an exciting milestone for the project! I'd like to thank *all* contributors [2] -- this milestone is a result of a truly great work by the entire community. Special thanks goes to Frances Perry, Dan Halperin and, of course, our mentor Jean-Baptiste Onofré, who was instrumental with his guidance on the Apache way. Davor [1] https://beam.incubator.apache.org/beam/release/2016/06/15/first-release.html [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/graphs/contributors?from=2016-02-26&to=2016-06-15&type=c
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
The third release candidate is now available for everyone's review [1], which should be incorporating all feedback so far. Please comment if there's additional feedback, as we are about to start the voting process. [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1002 On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > Thanks for the clarification JB. In the projects I’ve been involved with, > I’ve not seen that practice. > > As long as the resulting release ends up on dist.a.o I don’t think it’s a > problem. > > -Taylor > > > > On Jun 8, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > > Hi Taylor, > > > > Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on > repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org only > when the vote passed. > > > > Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will > document) is: > > - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform > > - Close repo > > - Start vote > > - If passed, forward vote to incubator > > - If passed, close repo > > - Upload distro to dist > > - Announce the release (mailing lists, website) > > > > It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on > repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? > >> > >> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven > artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives and > convenience binaries). > >> > >> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. > >> > >> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. > >> > >> -Taylor > >> > >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everyone! > >>> We've started the release process for our first release, > 0.1.0-incubating. > >>> > >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional > goals > >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's > currently in > >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. > >>> > >>> With this in mind, we've: > >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, > >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, > >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging > >>> repository [2]. > >>> > >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified > a few > >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a > peek > >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible > before we > >>> start the voting process. > >>> > >>> Please let us know if you see any issues. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Davor > >>> > >>> [1] > https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating > >>> [2] > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > jbono...@apache.org > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > >
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Thanks for the clarification JB. In the projects I’ve been involved with, I’ve not seen that practice. As long as the resulting release ends up on dist.a.o I don’t think it’s a problem. -Taylor > On Jun 8, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi Taylor, > > Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on > repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org only when > the vote passed. > > Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will document) > is: > - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform > - Close repo > - Start vote > - If passed, forward vote to incubator > - If passed, close repo > - Upload distro to dist > - Announce the release (mailing lists, website) > > It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc. > > Regards > JB > > On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on >> repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? >> >> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven >> artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives and >> convenience binaries). >> >> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. >> >> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. >> >> -Taylor >> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone! >>> We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating. >>> >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. >>> >>> With this in mind, we've: >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging >>> repository [2]. >>> >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we >>> start the voting process. >>> >>> Please let us know if you see any issues. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Davor >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating >>> [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Hi Amit, thanks for the update. Davor is updating a new RC to fix the source distribution issue. Stay tuned ! Regards JB On 06/08/2016 08:12 PM, Amit Sela wrote: To Davor, JB and anyone else helping with the release, Thanks! this looks great. On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:11 PM Amit Sela wrote: Regarding Dan's questions: 1. I'm not sure - it is built with spark-*_2.10 but I honestly don't know if this matters for the runner itself, it could be nice to have in order to be more informative. In addition, this will change with Spark 2.0 to Scala 2.11 AFAIK. 2. This is to allow running out-of-the-box examples I guess. The Flink runner just tells you how to do it on your own here: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/master/runners/flink Would you say this is a better approach ? In any case, packaging is necessary to run on cluster and the shading rules are there for Guava - Beam/Hadoop.. On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:14 PM Maximilian Michels wrote: I like the compromise on the Maven naming scheme. Thanks for incorporating all the feedback! On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Hi Taylor, Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org only when the vote passed. Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will document) is: - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform - Close repo - Start vote - If passed, forward vote to incubator - If passed, close repo - Upload distro to dist - Announce the release (mailing lists, website) It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc. Regards JB On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives and convenience binaries). I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. -Taylor On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: Hi everyone! We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating. To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in the repository, as well as work through the release process. With this in mind, we've: * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging repository [2]. We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we start the voting process. Please let us know if you see any issues. Thanks, Davor [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
To Davor, JB and anyone else helping with the release, Thanks! this looks great. On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:11 PM Amit Sela wrote: > Regarding Dan's questions: > 1. I'm not sure - it is built with spark-*_2.10 but I honestly don't know > if this matters for the runner itself, it could be nice to have in order to > be more informative. In addition, this will change with Spark 2.0 to Scala > 2.11 AFAIK. > 2. This is to allow running out-of-the-box examples I guess. The Flink > runner just tells you how to do it on your own here: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/master/runners/flink > Would you say this is a better approach ? > > In any case, packaging is necessary to run on cluster and the shading > rules are there for Guava - Beam/Hadoop.. > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:14 PM Maximilian Michels wrote: > >> I like the compromise on the Maven naming scheme. Thanks for >> incorporating all the feedback! >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> wrote: >> > Hi Taylor, >> > >> > Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on >> > repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org >> only when >> > the vote passed. >> > >> > Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will >> > document) is: >> > - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform >> > - Close repo >> > - Start vote >> > - If passed, forward vote to incubator >> > - If passed, close repo >> > - Upload distro to dist >> > - Announce the release (mailing lists, website) >> > >> > It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc. >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > >> > On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: >> >> >> >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on >> >> repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? >> >> >> >> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven >> >> artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source >> archives and >> >> convenience binaries). >> >> >> >> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. >> >> >> >> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. >> >> >> >> -Taylor >> >> >> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi everyone! >> >>> We've started the release process for our first release, >> >>> 0.1.0-incubating. >> >>> >> >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional >> goals >> >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's >> currently >> >>> in >> >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. >> >>> >> >>> With this in mind, we've: >> >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, >> >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, >> >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging >> >>> repository [2]. >> >>> >> >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified >> a >> >>> few >> >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a >> >>> peek >> >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible >> before >> >>> we >> >>> start the voting process. >> >>> >> >>> Please let us know if you see any issues. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Davor >> >>> >> >>> [1] >> >>> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating >> >>> [2] >> >>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > jbono...@apache.org >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Regarding Dan's questions: 1. I'm not sure - it is built with spark-*_2.10 but I honestly don't know if this matters for the runner itself, it could be nice to have in order to be more informative. In addition, this will change with Spark 2.0 to Scala 2.11 AFAIK. 2. This is to allow running out-of-the-box examples I guess. The Flink runner just tells you how to do it on your own here: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/master/runners/flink Would you say this is a better approach ? In any case, packaging is necessary to run on cluster and the shading rules are there for Guava - Beam/Hadoop.. On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:14 PM Maximilian Michels wrote: > I like the compromise on the Maven naming scheme. Thanks for > incorporating all the feedback! > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > Hi Taylor, > > > > Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on > > repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org only > when > > the vote passed. > > > > Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will > > document) is: > > - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform > > - Close repo > > - Start vote > > - If passed, forward vote to incubator > > - If passed, close repo > > - Upload distro to dist > > - Announce the release (mailing lists, website) > > > > It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > >> > >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on > >> repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? > >> > >> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven > >> artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives > and > >> convenience binaries). > >> > >> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. > >> > >> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. > >> > >> -Taylor > >> > >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everyone! > >>> We've started the release process for our first release, > >>> 0.1.0-incubating. > >>> > >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional > goals > >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently > >>> in > >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. > >>> > >>> With this in mind, we've: > >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, > >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, > >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging > >>> repository [2]. > >>> > >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a > >>> few > >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a > >>> peek > >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible > before > >>> we > >>> start the voting process. > >>> > >>> Please let us know if you see any issues. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Davor > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating > >>> [2] > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > jbono...@apache.org > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
I like the compromise on the Maven naming scheme. Thanks for incorporating all the feedback! On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Taylor, > > Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on > repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org only when > the vote passed. > > Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will > document) is: > - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform > - Close repo > - Start vote > - If passed, forward vote to incubator > - If passed, close repo > - Upload distro to dist > - Announce the release (mailing lists, website) > > It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc. > > Regards > JB > > > On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: >> >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on >> repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? >> >> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven >> artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives and >> convenience binaries). >> >> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. >> >> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. >> >> -Taylor >> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone! >>> We've started the release process for our first release, >>> 0.1.0-incubating. >>> >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently >>> in >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. >>> >>> With this in mind, we've: >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging >>> repository [2]. >>> >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a >>> few >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a >>> peek >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before >>> we >>> start the voting process. >>> >>> Please let us know if you see any issues. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Davor >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating >>> [2] >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Hi Taylor, Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org only when the vote passed. Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will document) is: - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform - Close repo - Start vote - If passed, forward vote to incubator - If passed, close repo - Upload distro to dist - Announce the release (mailing lists, website) It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc. Regards JB On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives and convenience binaries). I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. -Taylor On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: Hi everyone! We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating. To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in the repository, as well as work through the release process. With this in mind, we've: * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging repository [2]. We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we start the voting process. Please let us know if you see any issues. Thanks, Davor [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Hi, the "valid" one to use is apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip. The PR to fix content has been submitted and merged, Davor will cut a new staging soon. Regards JB On 06/08/2016 12:36 AM, Dan Halperin wrote: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/beam-parent/0.1.0-incubating/beam-parent-0.1.0-incubating-source-release.zip is what I think is a complete copy of the source release. note that the empty version JB is talking about is here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Seetharam Venkatesh wrote: Davor, I do not see the source tar ball for verifying the release. Can you please point me to that? Thanks! On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:21 PM Seetharam Venkatesh < venkat...@innerzeal.com> wrote: Aljoscha, if you want to be sure and want only one RC like me, I'd suggest you search general incubator mail archive and look for comments from Justin & Sebb - they are very thorough and will give you a headstart instead of iterating multiple times. On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:59 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Hi Aljoscha It's basically here: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html The checklist is interesting to check the release content: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list Regards JB On 06/07/2016 09:56 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: By the way, is there any document where we keep track of what checks to run for a release? Maybe I missed something, there. On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 at 21:29 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Just submitted: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/428 to fix the src distribution content. Regards JB On 06/07/2016 09:26 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: I have to revert my vote to -1: the source distribution zip file is empty. I gonna submit a new PR to fix that. Sorry about that. Regards JB On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: +1 it looks good to me: - all files have incubating - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there) - disclaimer exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary in source - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct content: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with this staging, and forward to the IPMC review. Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him bunch of times a day ;)). Regards JB On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1]. We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any additional feedback. [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001 On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: +1 Lovely. Very readable. The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our build configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? Kenn On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin wrote: +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most future-proof. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: +1 Regards JB On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other projects, I think we are converging towards: * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the org.apache.beam group. * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", "sdks-java-parent", etc. * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the source code for the ASF release. I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, and I think opposing positions have been retracted. Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending pull requests #420 and #423. Thanks! On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise wrote: Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution solutions is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it may be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId. The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also be controlled without expanding the artifactId: maven-assembly-plugin apache-beam
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Hi The distribution will be uploaded on dist when the release is done. It's what we do most of the time. RegardsJB Sent from my Samsung device Original message From: "P. Taylor Goetz" Date: 08/06/2016 02:39 (GMT+01:00) To: dev@beam.incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: 0.1.0-incubating release Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives and convenience binaries). I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. -Taylor > On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > Hi everyone! > We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating. > > To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals > for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in > the repository, as well as work through the release process. > > With this in mind, we've: > * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, > * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, > * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging > repository [2]. > > We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few > issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek > and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we > start the voting process. > > Please let us know if you see any issues. > > Thanks, > Davor > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating > [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives and convenience binaries). I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. -Taylor > On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > Hi everyone! > We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating. > > To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals > for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in > the repository, as well as work through the release process. > > With this in mind, we've: > * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, > * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, > * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging > repository [2]. > > We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few > issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek > and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we > start the voting process. > > Please let us know if you see any issues. > > Thanks, > Davor > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating > [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/beam-parent/0.1.0-incubating/beam-parent-0.1.0-incubating-source-release.zip is what I think is a complete copy of the source release. note that the empty version JB is talking about is here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Seetharam Venkatesh wrote: > Davor, I do not see the source tar ball for verifying the release. Can you > please point me to that? > > Thanks! > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:21 PM Seetharam Venkatesh < > venkat...@innerzeal.com> > wrote: > > > Aljoscha, if you want to be sure and want only one RC like me, I'd > suggest > > you search general incubator mail archive and look for comments from > Justin > > & Sebb - they are very thorough and will give you a headstart instead of > > iterating multiple times. > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:59 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Aljoscha > >> > >> It's basically here: > >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html > >> > >> The checklist is interesting to check the release content: > >> > >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On 06/07/2016 09:56 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > >> > By the way, is there any document where we keep track of what checks > to > >> run > >> > for a release? Maybe I missed something, there. > >> > > >> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 at 21:29 Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Just submitted: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/428 > >> >> > >> >> to fix the src distribution content. > >> >> > >> >> Regards > >> >> JB > >> >> > >> >> On 06/07/2016 09:26 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >> >>> I have to revert my vote to -1: > >> >>> > >> >>> the source distribution zip file is empty. > >> >>> > >> >>> I gonna submit a new PR to fix that. > >> >>> > >> >>> Sorry about that. > >> >>> > >> >>> Regards > >> >>> JB > >> >>> > >> >>> On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >> +1 > >> > >> it looks good to me: > >> > >> - all files have incubating > >> - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there) > >> - disclaimer exists > >> - LICENSE and NOTICE good > >> - No unexpected binary in source > >> - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers > >> - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and > correct > >> content: > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip > >> > >> > >> I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with > >> this > >> staging, and forward to the IPMC review. > >> > >> Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him > >> bunch of times a day ;)). > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > >> > The second release candidate is available for everyone's review > [1]. > >> > > >> > We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any > >> > additional feedback. > >> > > >> > [1] > >> > > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001 > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles > >> >> >>> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> +1 > >> >> > >> >> Lovely. Very readable. > >> >> > >> >> The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of > >> our > >> >> build > >> >> configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? > >> >> > >> >> Kenn > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin > >> >> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and > the > >> >> most > >> >>> future-proof. > >> >>> > >> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > >> >> j...@nanthrax.net> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> +1 > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> > >> On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > >> > >> > After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of > >> other > >> > projects, > >> > I think we are converging towards: > >> > > >> > * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the > >> > org.apache.beam > >> > group. > >> > * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". > >> > * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module > >> layout: > >> > beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, > >> etc. > >> > * Suffix all parents with "-parent",
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Davor, I do not see the source tar ball for verifying the release. Can you please point me to that? Thanks! On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:21 PM Seetharam Venkatesh wrote: > Aljoscha, if you want to be sure and want only one RC like me, I'd suggest > you search general incubator mail archive and look for comments from Justin > & Sebb - they are very thorough and will give you a headstart instead of > iterating multiple times. > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:59 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > >> Hi Aljoscha >> >> It's basically here: >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html >> >> The checklist is interesting to check the release content: >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 06/07/2016 09:56 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: >> > By the way, is there any document where we keep track of what checks to >> run >> > for a release? Maybe I missed something, there. >> > >> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 at 21:29 Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> wrote: >> > >> >> Just submitted: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/428 >> >> >> >> to fix the src distribution content. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> JB >> >> >> >> On 06/07/2016 09:26 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >> >>> I have to revert my vote to -1: >> >>> >> >>> the source distribution zip file is empty. >> >>> >> >>> I gonna submit a new PR to fix that. >> >>> >> >>> Sorry about that. >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> JB >> >>> >> >>> On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >> +1 >> >> it looks good to me: >> >> - all files have incubating >> - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there) >> - disclaimer exists >> - LICENSE and NOTICE good >> - No unexpected binary in source >> - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers >> - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct >> content: >> >> >> >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip >> >> >> I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with >> this >> staging, and forward to the IPMC review. >> >> Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him >> bunch of times a day ;)). >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: >> > The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1]. >> > >> > We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any >> > additional feedback. >> > >> > [1] >> > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001 >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles >> > >>> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> Lovely. Very readable. >> >> >> >> The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of >> our >> >> build >> >> configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? >> >> >> >> Kenn >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the >> >> most >> >>> future-proof. >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> >> j...@nanthrax.net> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> +1 >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> >> On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: >> >> > After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of >> other >> > projects, >> > I think we are converging towards: >> > >> > * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the >> > org.apache.beam >> > group. >> > * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". >> > * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module >> layout: >> > beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, >> etc. >> > * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", >> > "sdks-java-parent", etc. >> > * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging >> the >> >>> source >> > code for the ASF release. >> > >> > I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback >> so >> >> far, >> > and >> > I think opposing positions have been retracted. >> > >> > Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any >> > additional >> > points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in >> > pending >> > pull >> > requests #420 and #423. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > Anoth
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Aljoscha, if you want to be sure and want only one RC like me, I'd suggest you search general incubator mail archive and look for comments from Justin & Sebb - they are very thorough and will give you a headstart instead of iterating multiple times. On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:59 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Aljoscha > > It's basically here: > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html > > The checklist is interesting to check the release content: > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list > > Regards > JB > > On 06/07/2016 09:56 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > By the way, is there any document where we keep track of what checks to > run > > for a release? Maybe I missed something, there. > > > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 at 21:29 Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > >> Just submitted: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/428 > >> > >> to fix the src distribution content. > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On 06/07/2016 09:26 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >>> I have to revert my vote to -1: > >>> > >>> the source distribution zip file is empty. > >>> > >>> I gonna submit a new PR to fix that. > >>> > >>> Sorry about that. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >>> On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 > > it looks good to me: > > - all files have incubating > - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there) > - disclaimer exists > - LICENSE and NOTICE good > - No unexpected binary in source > - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers > - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct > content: > > > >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip > > > I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with > this > staging, and forward to the IPMC review. > > Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him > bunch of times a day ;)). > > Regards > JB > > On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1]. > > > > We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any > > additional feedback. > > > > [1] > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001 > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles > >>> > > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> Lovely. Very readable. > >> > >> The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of > our > >> build > >> configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? > >> > >> Kenn > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the > >> most > >>> future-proof. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > >> j...@nanthrax.net> > >>> wrote: > >>> > +1 > > Regards > JB > > > On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other > > projects, > > I think we are converging towards: > > > > * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the > > org.apache.beam > > group. > > * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". > > * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module > layout: > > beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, > etc. > > * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", > > "sdks-java-parent", etc. > > * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging > the > >>> source > > code for the ASF release. > > > > I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback > so > >> far, > > and > > I think opposing positions have been retracted. > > > > Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any > > additional > > points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in > > pending > > pull > > requests #420 and #423. > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise > > > > wrote: > > > > Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution > >> solutions > >> is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For > >> that > >> it > >> may > >> be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique > >>> artifactId. > >> > >> The name for the so
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Hi Aljoscha It's basically here: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html The checklist is interesting to check the release content: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list Regards JB On 06/07/2016 09:56 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: By the way, is there any document where we keep track of what checks to run for a release? Maybe I missed something, there. On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 at 21:29 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Just submitted: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/428 to fix the src distribution content. Regards JB On 06/07/2016 09:26 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: I have to revert my vote to -1: the source distribution zip file is empty. I gonna submit a new PR to fix that. Sorry about that. Regards JB On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: +1 it looks good to me: - all files have incubating - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there) - disclaimer exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary in source - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct content: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with this staging, and forward to the IPMC review. Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him bunch of times a day ;)). Regards JB On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1]. We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any additional feedback. [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001 On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: +1 Lovely. Very readable. The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our build configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? Kenn On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin wrote: +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most future-proof. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: +1 Regards JB On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other projects, I think we are converging towards: * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the org.apache.beam group. * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", "sdks-java-parent", etc. * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the source code for the ASF release. I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, and I think opposing positions have been retracted. Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending pull requests #420 and #423. Thanks! On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise wrote: Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution solutions is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it may be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId. The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also be controlled without expanding the artifactId: maven-assembly-plugin apache-beam Thanks, Thomas On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for holding the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in. In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and are differentiated by their artifact id. * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different types of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical structure is just the opposite. On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it, and it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to get back to a fully flat structure. M
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
By the way, is there any document where we keep track of what checks to run for a release? Maybe I missed something, there. On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 at 21:29 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Just submitted: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/428 > > to fix the src distribution content. > > Regards > JB > > On 06/07/2016 09:26 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > I have to revert my vote to -1: > > > > the source distribution zip file is empty. > > > > I gonna submit a new PR to fix that. > > > > Sorry about that. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >> +1 > >> > >> it looks good to me: > >> > >> - all files have incubating > >> - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there) > >> - disclaimer exists > >> - LICENSE and NOTICE good > >> - No unexpected binary in source > >> - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers > >> - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct > >> content: > >> > >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip > >> > >> > >> I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with this > >> staging, and forward to the IPMC review. > >> > >> Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him > >> bunch of times a day ;)). > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > >>> The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1]. > >>> > >>> We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any > >>> additional feedback. > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001 > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles > > >>> wrote: > >>> > +1 > > Lovely. Very readable. > > The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our > build > configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? > > Kenn > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin > > wrote: > > > +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the > most > > future-proof. > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> > >> On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > >> > >>> After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other > >>> projects, > >>> I think we are converging towards: > >>> > >>> * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the > >>> org.apache.beam > >>> group. > >>> * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". > >>> * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: > >>> beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. > >>> * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", > >>> "sdks-java-parent", etc. > >>> * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the > > source > >>> code for the ASF release. > >>> > >>> I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so > far, > >>> and > >>> I think opposing positions have been retracted. > >>> > >>> Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any > >>> additional > >>> points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in > >>> pending > >>> pull > >>> requests #420 and #423. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution > solutions > is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For > that > it > may > be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique > > artifactId. > > The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) > can > > also > be controlled without expanding the artifactId: > > > > > maven-assembly-plugin > > apache-beam > > > > > > Thanks, > Thomas > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci > >> > wrote: > > BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate > for > > > holding > > > the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, > however, > I'd > > prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the > process. > As > > you > > said, we can address this rath
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Just submitted: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/428 to fix the src distribution content. Regards JB On 06/07/2016 09:26 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: I have to revert my vote to -1: the source distribution zip file is empty. I gonna submit a new PR to fix that. Sorry about that. Regards JB On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: +1 it looks good to me: - all files have incubating - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there) - disclaimer exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary in source - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct content: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with this staging, and forward to the IPMC review. Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him bunch of times a day ;)). Regards JB On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1]. We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any additional feedback. [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001 On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: +1 Lovely. Very readable. The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our build configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? Kenn On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin wrote: +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most future-proof. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: +1 Regards JB On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other projects, I think we are converging towards: * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the org.apache.beam group. * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", "sdks-java-parent", etc. * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the source code for the ASF release. I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, and I think opposing positions have been retracted. Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending pull requests #420 and #423. Thanks! On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise wrote: Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution solutions is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it may be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId. The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also be controlled without expanding the artifactId: maven-assembly-plugin apache-beam Thanks, Thomas On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for holding the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in. In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and are differentiated by their artifact id. * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different types of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical structure is just the opposite. On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it, and it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to get back to a fully flat structure. My general biases tend to be: * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the artifact id. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < j...@nanthrax.net wrote: Hi Max, I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, flink-runner-parent, spark-runner-parent, etc). 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to m
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
I have to revert my vote to -1: the source distribution zip file is empty. I gonna submit a new PR to fix that. Sorry about that. Regards JB On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: +1 it looks good to me: - all files have incubating - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there) - disclaimer exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary in source - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct content: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with this staging, and forward to the IPMC review. Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him bunch of times a day ;)). Regards JB On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1]. We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any additional feedback. [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001 On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: +1 Lovely. Very readable. The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our build configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? Kenn On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin wrote: +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most future-proof. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: +1 Regards JB On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other projects, I think we are converging towards: * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the org.apache.beam group. * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", "sdks-java-parent", etc. * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the source code for the ASF release. I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, and I think opposing positions have been retracted. Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending pull requests #420 and #423. Thanks! On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise wrote: Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution solutions is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it may be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId. The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also be controlled without expanding the artifactId: maven-assembly-plugin apache-beam Thanks, Thomas On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for holding the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in. In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and are differentiated by their artifact id. * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different types of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical structure is just the opposite. On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it, and it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to get back to a fully flat structure. My general biases tend to be: * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the artifact id. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < j...@nanthrax.net wrote: Hi Max, I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, flink-runner-parent, spark-runner-parent, etc). 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to me, and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, activemq, etc). I pr
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
+1 it looks good to me: - all files have incubating - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there) - disclaimer exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary in source - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct content: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with this staging, and forward to the IPMC review. Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him bunch of times a day ;)). Regards JB On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1]. We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any additional feedback. [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001 On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: +1 Lovely. Very readable. The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our build configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? Kenn On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin wrote: +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most future-proof. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: +1 Regards JB On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other projects, I think we are converging towards: * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the org.apache.beam group. * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", "sdks-java-parent", etc. * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the source code for the ASF release. I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, and I think opposing positions have been retracted. Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending pull requests #420 and #423. Thanks! On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise wrote: Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution solutions is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it may be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId. The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also be controlled without expanding the artifactId: maven-assembly-plugin apache-beam Thanks, Thomas On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for holding the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in. In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and are differentiated by their artifact id. * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different types of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical structure is just the opposite. On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it, and it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to get back to a fully flat structure. My general biases tend to be: * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the artifact id. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < j...@nanthrax.net wrote: Hi Max, I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, flink-runner-parent, spark-runner-parent, etc). 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to me, and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, activemq, etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one. Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and BEAM
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1]. We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any additional feedback. [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001 On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > +1 > > Lovely. Very readable. > > The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our build > configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? > > Kenn > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin > wrote: > > > +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most > > future-proof. > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > > > > On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > > > >> After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other > > >> projects, > > >> I think we are converging towards: > > >> > > >> * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the > > >> org.apache.beam > > >> group. > > >> * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". > > >> * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: > > >> beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. > > >> * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", > > >> "sdks-java-parent", etc. > > >> * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the > > source > > >> code for the ASF release. > > >> > > >> I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so > far, > > >> and > > >> I think opposing positions have been retracted. > > >> > > >> Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional > > >> points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending > > >> pull > > >> requests #420 and #423. > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution > > >>> solutions > > >>> is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that > it > > >>> may > > >>> be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique > > artifactId. > > >>> > > >>> The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can > > also > > >>> be controlled without expanding the artifactId: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> maven-assembly-plugin > > >>> > > >>>apache-beam > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Thomas > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci > > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for > > > > >>> holding > > >>> > > the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, > I'd > > prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. > As > > you > > said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged > > in. > > > > In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: > > * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group > > and > > are differentiated by their artifact id. > > * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for > different > > > > >>> types > > >>> > > of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). > > > > There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different > > projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find > and > > navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. > Hierarchical > > structure is just the opposite. > > > > On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have > > it, > > > > >>> and > > >>> > > it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should > > either > > finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR > > to > > > > >>> get > > >>> > > back to a fully flat structure. > > > > My general biases tend to be: > > * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. > > * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the > > artifact id. > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Max, > > > > > > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: > > > > > > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, > > > > > flink-runner-parent, > > >>> > > spark-runner-parent, etc). > > > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer > > to > > > > > me, > > > > > and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a > single > > > groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (cam
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
+1 Lovely. Very readable. The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our build configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right? Kenn On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin wrote: > +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most > future-proof. > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > >> After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other > >> projects, > >> I think we are converging towards: > >> > >> * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the > >> org.apache.beam > >> group. > >> * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". > >> * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: > >> beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. > >> * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", > >> "sdks-java-parent", etc. > >> * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the > source > >> code for the ASF release. > >> > >> I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, > >> and > >> I think opposing positions have been retracted. > >> > >> Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional > >> points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending > >> pull > >> requests #420 and #423. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise > >> wrote: > >> > >> Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution > >>> solutions > >>> is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it > >>> may > >>> be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique > artifactId. > >>> > >>> The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can > also > >>> be controlled without expanding the artifactId: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> maven-assembly-plugin > >>> > >>>apache-beam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Thomas > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for > > >>> holding > >>> > the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd > prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As > you > said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged > in. > > In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: > * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group > and > are differentiated by their artifact id. > * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different > > >>> types > >>> > of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). > > There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different > projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and > navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical > structure is just the opposite. > > On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have > it, > > >>> and > >>> > it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should > either > finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR > to > > >>> get > >>> > back to a fully flat structure. > > My general biases tend to be: > * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. > * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the > artifact id. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > wrote: > > Hi Max, > > > > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: > > > > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, > > > flink-runner-parent, > >>> > spark-runner-parent, etc). > > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer > to > > > me, > > > and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single > > groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, > > > activemq, > > > etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one. > > > > Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: > > "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and > > BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different > > distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries). > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: > > > > Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would > >> like to fix
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
+1 On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin wrote: > +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most > future-proof. > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > >> After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other > >> projects, > >> I think we are converging towards: > >> > >> * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the > >> org.apache.beam > >> group. > >> * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". > >> * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: > >> beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. > >> * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", > >> "sdks-java-parent", etc. > >> * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the > source > >> code for the ASF release. > >> > >> I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, > >> and > >> I think opposing positions have been retracted. > >> > >> Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional > >> points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending > >> pull > >> requests #420 and #423. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise > >> wrote: > >> > >> Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution > >>> solutions > >>> is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it > >>> may > >>> be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique > artifactId. > >>> > >>> The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can > also > >>> be controlled without expanding the artifactId: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> maven-assembly-plugin > >>> > >>>apache-beam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Thomas > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for > > >>> holding > >>> > the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd > prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As > you > said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged > in. > > In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: > * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group > and > are differentiated by their artifact id. > * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different > > >>> types > >>> > of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). > > There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different > projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and > navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical > structure is just the opposite. > > On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have > it, > > >>> and > >>> > it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should > either > finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR > to > > >>> get > >>> > back to a fully flat structure. > > My general biases tend to be: > * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. > * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the > artifact id. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > wrote: > > Hi Max, > > > > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: > > > > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, > > > flink-runner-parent, > >>> > spark-runner-parent, etc). > > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer > to > > > me, > > > and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single > > groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, > > > activemq, > > > etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one. > > > > Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: > > "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and > > BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different > > distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries). > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: > > > > Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would > >> like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the > >> first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release. > >> Releasing often will give us
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
+2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most future-proof. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 > > Regards > JB > > > On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > >> After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other >> projects, >> I think we are converging towards: >> >> * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the >> org.apache.beam >> group. >> * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". >> * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: >> beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. >> * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", >> "sdks-java-parent", etc. >> * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the source >> code for the ASF release. >> >> I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, >> and >> I think opposing positions have been retracted. >> >> Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional >> points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending >> pull >> requests #420 and #423. >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise >> wrote: >> >> Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution >>> solutions >>> is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it >>> may >>> be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId. >>> >>> The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also >>> be controlled without expanding the artifactId: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> maven-assembly-plugin >>> >>>apache-beam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Thomas >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci >>> wrote: >>> >>> BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for >>> holding >>> the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in. In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and are differentiated by their artifact id. * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different >>> types >>> of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical structure is just the opposite. On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it, >>> and >>> it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to >>> get >>> back to a fully flat structure. My general biases tend to be: * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the artifact id. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Hi Max, > > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: > > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, > flink-runner-parent, >>> spark-runner-parent, etc). > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to > me, > and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single > groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, > activemq, > etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one. > > Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: > "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and > BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different > distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries). > > Regards > JB > > > On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: > > Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would >> like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the >> first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release. >> Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process >> :) >> >> I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids >> again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam >> parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner). >> I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as >> arti
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
+1 Regards JB On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other projects, I think we are converging towards: * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the org.apache.beam group. * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", "sdks-java-parent", etc. * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the source code for the ASF release. I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, and I think opposing positions have been retracted. Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending pull requests #420 and #423. Thanks! On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise wrote: Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution solutions is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it may be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId. The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also be controlled without expanding the artifactId: maven-assembly-plugin apache-beam Thanks, Thomas On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for holding the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in. In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and are differentiated by their artifact id. * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different types of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical structure is just the opposite. On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it, and it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to get back to a fully flat structure. My general biases tend to be: * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the artifact id. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Hi Max, I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, flink-runner-parent, spark-runner-parent, etc). 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to me, and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, activemq, etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one. Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries). Regards JB On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release. Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process :) I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner). I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as artifact ids. One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to "apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme which used flat group ids (before [1]). In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent naming scheme. Cheers, Max [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287 On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit. What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with: groupId: org.apache.beam artifactId: apache-beam ? Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named apache-be
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other projects, I think we are converging towards: * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the org.apache.beam group. * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-". * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout: beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc. * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent", "sdks-java-parent", etc. * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the source code for the ASF release. I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, and I think opposing positions have been retracted. Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending pull requests #420 and #423. Thanks! On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise wrote: > Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution solutions > is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it may > be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId. > > The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also > be controlled without expanding the artifactId: > > > > > maven-assembly-plugin > > apache-beam > > > > > > Thanks, > Thomas > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci > wrote: > > > BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for > holding > > the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd > > prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you > > said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in. > > > > In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: > > * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and > > are differentiated by their artifact id. > > * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different > types > > of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). > > > > There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different > > projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and > > navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical > > structure is just the opposite. > > > > On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it, > and > > it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either > > finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to > get > > back to a fully flat structure. > > > > My general biases tend to be: > > * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. > > * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the > > artifact id. > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Max, > > > > > > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: > > > > > > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, > flink-runner-parent, > > > spark-runner-parent, etc). > > > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to > > me, > > > and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single > > > groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, > > activemq, > > > etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one. > > > > > > Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: > > > "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and > > > BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different > > > distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries). > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > > > > On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would > > >> like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the > > >> first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release. > > >> Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process > > >> :) > > >> > > >> I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids > > >> again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam > > >> parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner). > > >> I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as > > >> artifact ids. > > >> > > >> One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're > > >> not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to > > >> "apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme > > >> which used flat group ids (before [1]). > > >> > > >> In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the > > >> naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent > > >> naming scheme. > > >> > > >> Cheers
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution solutions is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it may be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId. The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also be controlled without expanding the artifactId: maven-assembly-plugin apache-beam Thanks, Thomas On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for holding > the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd > prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you > said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in. > > In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: > * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and > are differentiated by their artifact id. > * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different types > of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). > > There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different > projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and > navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical > structure is just the opposite. > > On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it, and > it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either > finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to get > back to a fully flat structure. > > My general biases tend to be: > * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. > * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the > artifact id. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > Hi Max, > > > > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: > > > > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, flink-runner-parent, > > spark-runner-parent, etc). > > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to > me, > > and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single > > groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, > activemq, > > etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one. > > > > Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: > > "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and > > BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different > > distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries). > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: > > > >> Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would > >> like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the > >> first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release. > >> Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process > >> :) > >> > >> I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids > >> again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam > >> parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner). > >> I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as > >> artifact ids. > >> > >> One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're > >> not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to > >> "apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme > >> which used flat group ids (before [1]). > >> > >> In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the > >> naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent > >> naming scheme. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Max > >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287 > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit. > >>> > >>> What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with: > >>> groupId: org.apache.beam > >>> artifactId: apache-beam > >>> > >>> ? > >>> > >>> Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named > >>> apache-beam-xxx-sources.zip and it would be clearer to dev. > >>> > >>> Thoughts ? > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >>> > >>> On 06/02/2016 03:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >>> > > Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId. > > Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to > "beam-parent" ? > > Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to > fix that (I will have a PR ready soon). > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB > > On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone! > > We've started the release proce
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for holding the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in. In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches: * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and are differentiated by their artifact id. * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different types of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners). There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical structure is just the opposite. On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it, and it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to get back to a fully flat structure. My general biases tend to be: * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already. * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the artifact id. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Max, > > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: > > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, flink-runner-parent, > spark-runner-parent, etc). > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to me, > and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single > groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, activemq, > etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one. > > Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: > "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and > BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different > distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries). > > Regards > JB > > > On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: > >> Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would >> like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the >> first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release. >> Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process >> :) >> >> I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids >> again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam >> parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner). >> I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as >> artifact ids. >> >> One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're >> not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to >> "apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme >> which used flat group ids (before [1]). >> >> In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the >> naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent >> naming scheme. >> >> Cheers, >> Max >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287 >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> wrote: >> >>> Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit. >>> >>> What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with: >>> groupId: org.apache.beam >>> artifactId: apache-beam >>> >>> ? >>> >>> Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named >>> apache-beam-xxx-sources.zip and it would be clearer to dev. >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> >>> On 06/02/2016 03:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >>> Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId. Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to "beam-parent" ? Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to fix that (I will have a PR ready soon). Thoughts ? Regards JB On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > Hi everyone! > We've started the release process for our first release, > 0.1.0-incubating. > > To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional > goals > for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's > currently in > the repository, as well as work through the release process. > > With this in mind, we've: > * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, > * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, > * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging > repository [2]. > > We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified > a few > issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a > peek > and comment. I'm hoping w
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Hi Max, I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed: 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, flink-runner-parent, spark-runner-parent, etc). 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to me, and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, activemq, etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one. Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries). Regards JB On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release. Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process :) I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner). I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as artifact ids. One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to "apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme which used flat group ids (before [1]). In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent naming scheme. Cheers, Max [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287 On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit. What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with: groupId: org.apache.beam artifactId: apache-beam ? Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named apache-beam-xxx-sources.zip and it would be clearer to dev. Thoughts ? Regards JB On 06/02/2016 03:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId. Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to "beam-parent" ? Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to fix that (I will have a PR ready soon). Thoughts ? Regards JB On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: Hi everyone! We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating. To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in the repository, as well as work through the release process. With this in mind, we've: * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging repository [2]. We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we start the voting process. Please let us know if you see any issues. Thanks, Davor [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
+1 on Max's comment on naming. I prefer spark-runner and beam-parent as well. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016, 12:03 Maximilian Michels wrote: > Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would > like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the > first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release. > Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process > :) > > I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids > again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam > parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner). > I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as > artifact ids. > > One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're > not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to > "apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme > which used flat group ids (before [1]). > > In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the > naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent > naming scheme. > > Cheers, > Max > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287 > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit. > > > > What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with: > > groupId: org.apache.beam > > artifactId: apache-beam > > > > ? > > > > Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named > > apache-beam-xxx-sources.zip and it would be clearer to dev. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 06/02/2016 03:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > >> > >> Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId. > >> > >> Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to > >> "beam-parent" ? > >> > >> Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to > >> fix that (I will have a PR ready soon). > >> > >> Thoughts ? > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everyone! > >>> We've started the release process for our first release, > >>> 0.1.0-incubating. > >>> > >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional > goals > >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's > >>> currently in > >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. > >>> > >>> With this in mind, we've: > >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, > >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, > >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging > >>> repository [2]. > >>> > >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified > >>> a few > >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a > >>> peek > >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible > >>> before we > >>> start the voting process. > >>> > >>> Please let us know if you see any issues. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Davor > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating > >>> [2] > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ > >>> > >> > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > jbono...@apache.org > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release. Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process :) I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner). I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as artifact ids. One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to "apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme which used flat group ids (before [1]). In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent naming scheme. Cheers, Max [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287 On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit. > > What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with: > groupId: org.apache.beam > artifactId: apache-beam > > ? > > Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named > apache-beam-xxx-sources.zip and it would be clearer to dev. > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB > > > On 06/02/2016 03:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >> >> Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId. >> >> Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to >> "beam-parent" ? >> >> Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to >> fix that (I will have a PR ready soon). >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone! >>> We've started the release process for our first release, >>> 0.1.0-incubating. >>> >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's >>> currently in >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. >>> >>> With this in mind, we've: >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging >>> repository [2]. >>> >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified >>> a few >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a >>> peek >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible >>> before we >>> start the voting process. >>> >>> Please let us know if you see any issues. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Davor >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating >>> [2] >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ >>> >> > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit. What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with: groupId: org.apache.beam artifactId: apache-beam ? Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named apache-beam-xxx-sources.zip and it would be clearer to dev. Thoughts ? Regards JB On 06/02/2016 03:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId. Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to "beam-parent" ? Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to fix that (I will have a PR ready soon). Thoughts ? Regards JB On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: Hi everyone! We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating. To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in the repository, as well as work through the release process. With this in mind, we've: * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging repository [2]. We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we start the voting process. Please let us know if you see any issues. Thanks, Davor [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId. Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to "beam-parent" ? Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to fix that (I will have a PR ready soon). Thoughts ? Regards JB On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: Hi everyone! We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating. To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in the repository, as well as work through the release process. With this in mind, we've: * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging repository [2]. We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we start the voting process. Please let us know if you see any issues. Thanks, Davor [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: 0.1.0-incubating release
Hi, As discussed, the release process looks good to me (a bit long compare to that we use to do ;)). Regarding the source stage: - all files have incubating - signatures check out (and KEYS there) - disclaimer exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary in source - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers Should be improved: - the source distribution is named parent-0.1.0-incubating-source-release.zip where it should be apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-source.zip (gonna provide a PR to fix that) - the source distribution is only available as zip archive, you could provide tar.gz archive too So, with a quick fix on the distribution name, we will be ready to go. Regards JB On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: Hi everyone! We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating. To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in the repository, as well as work through the release process. With this in mind, we've: * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging repository [2]. We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we start the voting process. Please let us know if you see any issues. Thanks, Davor [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
0.1.0-incubating release
Hi everyone! We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating. To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in the repository, as well as work through the release process. With this in mind, we've: * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging repository [2]. We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we start the voting process. Please let us know if you see any issues. Thanks, Davor [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/
