Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[jincheng sun]

Thanks for your confirm Till !
Publish the PyFlink into PyPI is very important for our user,  I
have initiated a voting thread.

Best,
Jincheng

Till Rohrmann  于2019年7月29日周一 下午3:01写道：

> Sounds good to me. Thanks for driving this discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:24 AM jincheng sun 
> wrote:
>
> > Yes Till, I think you are correct that we should make sure that the
> > published Flink Python API cannot be arbitrarily deleted.
> >
> > So, It seems that our current consensus is:
> >
> > 1. Should we re publish the PyFlink into PyPI --> YES
> > 2. PyPI Project Name ---> apache-flink
> > 3. How to handle Scala_2.11 and Scala_2.12 ---> We only release one
> binary
> > with the default Scala version same with flink default config.
> > 4. PyPI account for release --> Create an account such as 'pyflink' as
> > owner(only PMC can manage it) and adds the release manager's account as
> > maintainers of the project. Release managers publish the package to PyPI
> > using their own account but can not delete the release.
> >
> > So, If there no other comments, I think we should initiate a voting
> thread.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Best, Jincheng
> >
> >
> > Till Rohrmann  于2019年7月24日周三 下午1:17写道：
> >
> > > Sorry for chiming in so late. I would be in favor of option #2.
> > >
> > > I guess that the PMC would need to give the credentials to the release
> > > manager for option #1. Hence, the PMC could also add the release
> manager
> > as
> > > a maintainer which makes sure that only the PMC can delete artifacts.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Till
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM jincheng sun <
> sunjincheng...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for all of your reply!
> > > >
> > > > Hi Stephan, thanks for the reply and prove the details we need to pay
> > > > attention to. such as: Readme and Trademark compliance. Regarding the
> > > PyPI
> > > > account for release,  #1 may have some risk that our release package
> > can
> > > be
> > > > deleted by anyone who know the password of the account. And in this
> > case
> > > > PMC would not have means to correct problems. So, I think the #2 is
> > > pretty
> > > > safe for flink community.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jeff, thanks for share your thoughts. Python API just a
> > language
> > > > entry point. I think which binary should be contained in the release
> we
> > > > should make consistency with Java release policy.  So, currently we
> do
> > > not
> > > > add the Hadoop, connectors JARs into the release package.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Chesnay, agree that we should ship the very common binary in
> feature
> > > if
> > > > Java side already make the decision.
> > > >
> > > > So, our current consensus is:
> > > > 1. Should we re publish the PyFlink into PyPI --> YES
> > > > 2. PyPI Project Name ---> apache-flink
> > > > 3. How to handle Scala_2.11 and Scala_2.12 ---> We only release one
> > > binary
> > > > with the default Scala version same with flink default config.
> > > >
> > > > We still need discuss how to manage PyPI account for release:
> > > > 
> > > > > 1) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as the owner share it with
> all
> > > the
> > > > release managers and then release managers can publish the package to
> > > PyPI
> > > > using this account.
> > > > 2) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as owner(only PMC can
> manage
> > > it)
> > > > and adds the release manager's account as maintainers of the project.
> > > > Release managers publish the package to PyPI using their own account.
> > > > 
> > > > Stephan like the #1 but want PMC can correct the problems. (sounds
> like
> > > #2)
> > > > can you conform that ? @Stephan
> > > > Chesnay and I prefer to #2
> > > >
> > > > Best, Jincheng
> > > >
> > > > Chesnay Schepler  于2019年7月24日周三 下午3:57写道：
> > > >
> > > > > if we ship a binary, we should ship the binary we usually ship, not
> > > some
> > > > > highly customized version.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 24/07/2019 05:19, Dian Fu wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Stephan & Jeff,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the bundled jars, currently only the jars in the flink
> > > binary
> > > > > distribution is packaged in the pyflink package. That maybe a good
> > idea
> > > > to
> > > > > also bundle the other jars such as flink-hadoop-compatibility. We
> may
> > > > need
> > > > > also consider whether to bundle the format jars such as flink-avro,
> > > > > flink-json, flink-csv and the connector jars such as
> > > > flink-connector-kafka,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If FLINK_HOME is set, the binary distribution specified by
> > FLINK_HOME
> > > > > will be used instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Dian
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> 在 2019年7月24日，上午9:47，Jeff Zhang  写道：
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> +1 for publishing pyflink to pypi.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Regarding including jar, I just want to make sure which 

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[Till Rohrmann]

Sounds good to me. Thanks for driving this discussion.

Cheers,
Till

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:24 AM jincheng sun 
wrote:

> Yes Till, I think you are correct that we should make sure that the
> published Flink Python API cannot be arbitrarily deleted.
>
> So, It seems that our current consensus is:
>
> 1. Should we re publish the PyFlink into PyPI --> YES
> 2. PyPI Project Name ---> apache-flink
> 3. How to handle Scala_2.11 and Scala_2.12 ---> We only release one binary
> with the default Scala version same with flink default config.
> 4. PyPI account for release --> Create an account such as 'pyflink' as
> owner(only PMC can manage it) and adds the release manager's account as
> maintainers of the project. Release managers publish the package to PyPI
> using their own account but can not delete the release.
>
> So, If there no other comments, I think we should initiate a voting thread.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best, Jincheng
>
>
> Till Rohrmann  于2019年7月24日周三 下午1:17写道：
>
> > Sorry for chiming in so late. I would be in favor of option #2.
> >
> > I guess that the PMC would need to give the credentials to the release
> > manager for option #1. Hence, the PMC could also add the release manager
> as
> > a maintainer which makes sure that only the PMC can delete artifacts.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM jincheng sun 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Thanks for all of your reply!
> > >
> > > Hi Stephan, thanks for the reply and prove the details we need to pay
> > > attention to. such as: Readme and Trademark compliance. Regarding the
> > PyPI
> > > account for release,  #1 may have some risk that our release package
> can
> > be
> > > deleted by anyone who know the password of the account. And in this
> case
> > > PMC would not have means to correct problems. So, I think the #2 is
> > pretty
> > > safe for flink community.
> > >
> > > Hi Jeff, thanks for share your thoughts. Python API just a
> language
> > > entry point. I think which binary should be contained in the release we
> > > should make consistency with Java release policy.  So, currently we do
> > not
> > > add the Hadoop, connectors JARs into the release package.
> > >
> > > Hi Chesnay, agree that we should ship the very common binary in feature
> > if
> > > Java side already make the decision.
> > >
> > > So, our current consensus is:
> > > 1. Should we re publish the PyFlink into PyPI --> YES
> > > 2. PyPI Project Name ---> apache-flink
> > > 3. How to handle Scala_2.11 and Scala_2.12 ---> We only release one
> > binary
> > > with the default Scala version same with flink default config.
> > >
> > > We still need discuss how to manage PyPI account for release:
> > > 
> > > > 1) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as the owner share it with all
> > the
> > > release managers and then release managers can publish the package to
> > PyPI
> > > using this account.
> > > 2) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as owner(only PMC can manage
> > it)
> > > and adds the release manager's account as maintainers of the project.
> > > Release managers publish the package to PyPI using their own account.
> > > 
> > > Stephan like the #1 but want PMC can correct the problems. (sounds like
> > #2)
> > > can you conform that ? @Stephan
> > > Chesnay and I prefer to #2
> > >
> > > Best, Jincheng
> > >
> > > Chesnay Schepler  于2019年7月24日周三 下午3:57写道：
> > >
> > > > if we ship a binary, we should ship the binary we usually ship, not
> > some
> > > > highly customized version.
> > > >
> > > > On 24/07/2019 05:19, Dian Fu wrote:
> > > > > Hi Stephan & Jeff,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts!
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the bundled jars, currently only the jars in the flink
> > binary
> > > > distribution is packaged in the pyflink package. That maybe a good
> idea
> > > to
> > > > also bundle the other jars such as flink-hadoop-compatibility. We may
> > > need
> > > > also consider whether to bundle the format jars such as flink-avro,
> > > > flink-json, flink-csv and the connector jars such as
> > > flink-connector-kafka,
> > > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > If FLINK_HOME is set, the binary distribution specified by
> FLINK_HOME
> > > > will be used instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Dian
> > > > >
> > > > >> 在 2019年7月24日，上午9:47，Jeff Zhang  写道：
> > > > >>
> > > > >> +1 for publishing pyflink to pypi.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regarding including jar, I just want to make sure which flink
> binary
> > > > >> distribution we would ship with pyflink since we have multiple
> flink
> > > > binary
> > > > >> distributions (w/o hadoop).
> > > > >> Personally, I prefer to use the hadoop-included binary
> distribution.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And I just want to confirm whether it is possible for users to
> use a
> > > > >> different flink binary distribution as long as he set env
> > FLINK_HOME.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Besides that, I hope that there will be bi-direction link
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[jincheng sun]

Yes Till, I think you are correct that we should make sure that the
published Flink Python API cannot be arbitrarily deleted.

So, It seems that our current consensus is:

1. Should we re publish the PyFlink into PyPI --> YES
2. PyPI Project Name ---> apache-flink
3. How to handle Scala_2.11 and Scala_2.12 ---> We only release one binary
with the default Scala version same with flink default config.
4. PyPI account for release --> Create an account such as 'pyflink' as
owner(only PMC can manage it) and adds the release manager's account as
maintainers of the project. Release managers publish the package to PyPI
using their own account but can not delete the release.

So, If there no other comments, I think we should initiate a voting thread.

What do you think?

Best, Jincheng


Till Rohrmann  于2019年7月24日周三 下午1:17写道：

> Sorry for chiming in so late. I would be in favor of option #2.
>
> I guess that the PMC would need to give the credentials to the release
> manager for option #1. Hence, the PMC could also add the release manager as
> a maintainer which makes sure that only the PMC can delete artifacts.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM jincheng sun 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Thanks for all of your reply!
> >
> > Hi Stephan, thanks for the reply and prove the details we need to pay
> > attention to. such as: Readme and Trademark compliance. Regarding the
> PyPI
> > account for release,  #1 may have some risk that our release package can
> be
> > deleted by anyone who know the password of the account. And in this case
> > PMC would not have means to correct problems. So, I think the #2 is
> pretty
> > safe for flink community.
> >
> > Hi Jeff, thanks for share your thoughts. Python API just a language
> > entry point. I think which binary should be contained in the release we
> > should make consistency with Java release policy.  So, currently we do
> not
> > add the Hadoop, connectors JARs into the release package.
> >
> > Hi Chesnay, agree that we should ship the very common binary in feature
> if
> > Java side already make the decision.
> >
> > So, our current consensus is:
> > 1. Should we re publish the PyFlink into PyPI --> YES
> > 2. PyPI Project Name ---> apache-flink
> > 3. How to handle Scala_2.11 and Scala_2.12 ---> We only release one
> binary
> > with the default Scala version same with flink default config.
> >
> > We still need discuss how to manage PyPI account for release:
> > 
> > > 1) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as the owner share it with all
> the
> > release managers and then release managers can publish the package to
> PyPI
> > using this account.
> > 2) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as owner(only PMC can manage
> it)
> > and adds the release manager's account as maintainers of the project.
> > Release managers publish the package to PyPI using their own account.
> > 
> > Stephan like the #1 but want PMC can correct the problems. (sounds like
> #2)
> > can you conform that ? @Stephan
> > Chesnay and I prefer to #2
> >
> > Best, Jincheng
> >
> > Chesnay Schepler  于2019年7月24日周三 下午3:57写道：
> >
> > > if we ship a binary, we should ship the binary we usually ship, not
> some
> > > highly customized version.
> > >
> > > On 24/07/2019 05:19, Dian Fu wrote:
> > > > Hi Stephan & Jeff,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts!
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the bundled jars, currently only the jars in the flink
> binary
> > > distribution is packaged in the pyflink package. That maybe a good idea
> > to
> > > also bundle the other jars such as flink-hadoop-compatibility. We may
> > need
> > > also consider whether to bundle the format jars such as flink-avro,
> > > flink-json, flink-csv and the connector jars such as
> > flink-connector-kafka,
> > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > If FLINK_HOME is set, the binary distribution specified by FLINK_HOME
> > > will be used instead.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Dian
> > > >
> > > >> 在 2019年7月24日，上午9:47，Jeff Zhang  写道：
> > > >>
> > > >> +1 for publishing pyflink to pypi.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regarding including jar, I just want to make sure which flink binary
> > > >> distribution we would ship with pyflink since we have multiple flink
> > > binary
> > > >> distributions (w/o hadoop).
> > > >> Personally, I prefer to use the hadoop-included binary distribution.
> > > >>
> > > >> And I just want to confirm whether it is possible for users to use a
> > > >> different flink binary distribution as long as he set env
> FLINK_HOME.
> > > >>
> > > >> Besides that, I hope that there will be bi-direction link reference
> > > between
> > > >> flink doc and pypi doc.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Stephan Ewen  于2019年7月24日周三 上午12:07写道：
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sorry for the late involvement. Here are some thoughts from my
> side:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Definitely +1 to publishing to PyPy, even if it is a binary
> release.
> > > >>> Community growth into other communities is great, 

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[Till Rohrmann]

Sorry for chiming in so late. I would be in favor of option #2.

I guess that the PMC would need to give the credentials to the release
manager for option #1. Hence, the PMC could also add the release manager as
a maintainer which makes sure that only the PMC can delete artifacts.

Cheers,
Till

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM jincheng sun 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for all of your reply!
>
> Hi Stephan, thanks for the reply and prove the details we need to pay
> attention to. such as: Readme and Trademark compliance. Regarding the PyPI
> account for release,  #1 may have some risk that our release package can be
> deleted by anyone who know the password of the account. And in this case
> PMC would not have means to correct problems. So, I think the #2 is pretty
> safe for flink community.
>
> Hi Jeff, thanks for share your thoughts. Python API just a language
> entry point. I think which binary should be contained in the release we
> should make consistency with Java release policy.  So, currently we do not
> add the Hadoop, connectors JARs into the release package.
>
> Hi Chesnay, agree that we should ship the very common binary in feature if
> Java side already make the decision.
>
> So, our current consensus is:
> 1. Should we re publish the PyFlink into PyPI --> YES
> 2. PyPI Project Name ---> apache-flink
> 3. How to handle Scala_2.11 and Scala_2.12 ---> We only release one binary
> with the default Scala version same with flink default config.
>
> We still need discuss how to manage PyPI account for release:
> 
> > 1) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as the owner share it with all the
> release managers and then release managers can publish the package to PyPI
> using this account.
> 2) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as owner(only PMC can manage it)
> and adds the release manager's account as maintainers of the project.
> Release managers publish the package to PyPI using their own account.
> 
> Stephan like the #1 but want PMC can correct the problems. (sounds like #2)
> can you conform that ? @Stephan
> Chesnay and I prefer to #2
>
> Best, Jincheng
>
> Chesnay Schepler  于2019年7月24日周三 下午3:57写道：
>
> > if we ship a binary, we should ship the binary we usually ship, not some
> > highly customized version.
> >
> > On 24/07/2019 05:19, Dian Fu wrote:
> > > Hi Stephan & Jeff,
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts!
> > >
> > > Regarding the bundled jars, currently only the jars in the flink binary
> > distribution is packaged in the pyflink package. That maybe a good idea
> to
> > also bundle the other jars such as flink-hadoop-compatibility. We may
> need
> > also consider whether to bundle the format jars such as flink-avro,
> > flink-json, flink-csv and the connector jars such as
> flink-connector-kafka,
> > etc.
> > >
> > > If FLINK_HOME is set, the binary distribution specified by FLINK_HOME
> > will be used instead.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Dian
> > >
> > >> 在 2019年7月24日，上午9:47，Jeff Zhang  写道：
> > >>
> > >> +1 for publishing pyflink to pypi.
> > >>
> > >> Regarding including jar, I just want to make sure which flink binary
> > >> distribution we would ship with pyflink since we have multiple flink
> > binary
> > >> distributions (w/o hadoop).
> > >> Personally, I prefer to use the hadoop-included binary distribution.
> > >>
> > >> And I just want to confirm whether it is possible for users to use a
> > >> different flink binary distribution as long as he set env FLINK_HOME.
> > >>
> > >> Besides that, I hope that there will be bi-direction link reference
> > between
> > >> flink doc and pypi doc.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Stephan Ewen  于2019年7月24日周三 上午12:07写道：
> > >>
> > >>> Hi!
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry for the late involvement. Here are some thoughts from my side:
> > >>>
> > >>> Definitely +1 to publishing to PyPy, even if it is a binary release.
> > >>> Community growth into other communities is great, and if this is the
> > >>> natural way to reach developers in the Python community, let's do it.
> > This
> > >>> is not about our convenience, but reaching users.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the way to look at this is that this is a convenience
> > distribution
> > >>> channel, courtesy of the Flink community. It is not an Apache
> release,
> > we
> > >>> make this clear in the Readme.
> > >>> Of course, this doesn't mean we don't try to uphold similar standards
> > as
> > >>> for our official release (like proper license information).
> > >>>
> > >>> Concerning credentials sharing, I would be fine with whatever option.
> > The
> > >>> PMC doesn't own it (it is an initiative by some community members),
> > but the
> > >>> PMC needs to ensure trademark compliance, so slight preference for
> > option
> > >>> #1 (PMC would have means to correct problems).
> > >>>
> > >>> I believe there is no need to differentiate between Scala versions,
> > because
> > >>> this is merely a convenience thing for pure Python users. Users that
> > mix
> > >>> python and scala 

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[Chesnay Schepler]

if we ship a binary, we should ship the binary we usually ship, not some 
highly customized version.


On 24/07/2019 05:19, Dian Fu wrote:

Hi Stephan & Jeff,

Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts!

Regarding the bundled jars, currently only the jars in the flink binary 
distribution is packaged in the pyflink package. That maybe a good idea to also 
bundle the other jars such as flink-hadoop-compatibility. We may need also 
consider whether to bundle the format jars such as flink-avro, flink-json, 
flink-csv and the connector jars such as flink-connector-kafka, etc.

If FLINK_HOME is set, the binary distribution specified by FLINK_HOME will be 
used instead.

Regards,
Dian


在 2019年7月24日，上午9:47，Jeff Zhang  写道：

+1 for publishing pyflink to pypi.

Regarding including jar, I just want to make sure which flink binary
distribution we would ship with pyflink since we have multiple flink binary
distributions (w/o hadoop).
Personally, I prefer to use the hadoop-included binary distribution.

And I just want to confirm whether it is possible for users to use a
different flink binary distribution as long as he set env FLINK_HOME.

Besides that, I hope that there will be bi-direction link reference between
flink doc and pypi doc.



Stephan Ewen  于2019年7月24日周三 上午12:07写道：


Hi!

Sorry for the late involvement. Here are some thoughts from my side:

Definitely +1 to publishing to PyPy, even if it is a binary release.
Community growth into other communities is great, and if this is the
natural way to reach developers in the Python community, let's do it. This
is not about our convenience, but reaching users.

I think the way to look at this is that this is a convenience distribution
channel, courtesy of the Flink community. It is not an Apache release, we
make this clear in the Readme.
Of course, this doesn't mean we don't try to uphold similar standards as
for our official release (like proper license information).

Concerning credentials sharing, I would be fine with whatever option. The
PMC doesn't own it (it is an initiative by some community members), but the
PMC needs to ensure trademark compliance, so slight preference for option
#1 (PMC would have means to correct problems).

I believe there is no need to differentiate between Scala versions, because
this is merely a convenience thing for pure Python users. Users that mix
python and scala (and thus depend on specific scala versions) can still
download from Apache or build themselves.

Best,
Stephan



On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:51 AM jincheng sun 
wrote:


Hi All,

Thanks for the feedback @Chesnay Schepler  @Dian!

I think using `apache-flink` for the project name also makes sense to me.
due to we should always keep in mind that Flink is owned by Apache. (And
beam also using this pattern `apache-beam` for Python API)

Regarding the Python API release with the JAVA JARs, I think the

principle

of consideration is the convenience of the user. So, Thanks for the
explanation @Dian!

And your right @Chesnay Schepler   we can't make a
hasty decision and we need more people's opinions！

So, I appreciate it if anyone can give us feedback and suggestions!

Best,
Jincheng




Chesnay Schepler  于2019年7月3日周三 下午8:46写道：


So this would not be a source release then, but a full-blown binary
release.

Maybe it is just me, but I find it a bit suspect to ship an entire java
application via PyPI, just because there's a Python API for it.

We definitely need input from more people here.

On 03/07/2019 14:09, Dian Fu wrote:

Hi Chesnay,

Thanks a lot for the suggestions.

Regarding “distributing java/scala code to PyPI”:
The Python Table API is just a wrapper of the Java Table API and

without

the java/scala code, two steps will be needed to set up an environment

to

execute a Python Table API program:

1) Install pyflink using "pip install apache-flink"
2) Download the flink distribution and set the FLINK_HOME to it.
Besides, users have to make sure that the manually installed Flink is

compatible with the pip installed pyflink.

Bundle the java/scala code inside the Python package will eliminate

step

2) and makes it more simple for users to install pyflink. There was a

short

discussion  on this

in

Spark community and they finally decide to package the java/scala code

in

the python package. (BTW, PySpark only bundle the jars of scala 2.11).

Regards,
Dian


在 2019年7月3日，下午7:13，Chesnay Schepler  写道：

The existing artifact in the pyflink project was neither released by

the Flink project / anyone affiliated with it nor approved by the Flink

PMC.

As such, if we were to use this account I believe we should delete

it

to not mislead users that this is in any way an apache-provided
distribution. Since this goes against the users wishes, I would be in

favor

of creating a separate account, and giving back control over the

pyflink

account.

My take on the raised points:
1.1) "apache-flink"
1.2)  option 2
2) Given that we 

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[Dian Fu]

Hi Stephan & Jeff,

Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts!

Regarding the bundled jars, currently only the jars in the flink binary 
distribution is packaged in the pyflink package. That maybe a good idea to also 
bundle the other jars such as flink-hadoop-compatibility. We may need also 
consider whether to bundle the format jars such as flink-avro, flink-json, 
flink-csv and the connector jars such as flink-connector-kafka, etc.

If FLINK_HOME is set, the binary distribution specified by FLINK_HOME will be 
used instead.

Regards,
Dian

> 在 2019年7月24日，上午9:47，Jeff Zhang  写道：
> 
> +1 for publishing pyflink to pypi.
> 
> Regarding including jar, I just want to make sure which flink binary
> distribution we would ship with pyflink since we have multiple flink binary
> distributions (w/o hadoop).
> Personally, I prefer to use the hadoop-included binary distribution.
> 
> And I just want to confirm whether it is possible for users to use a
> different flink binary distribution as long as he set env FLINK_HOME.
> 
> Besides that, I hope that there will be bi-direction link reference between
> flink doc and pypi doc.
> 
> 
> 
> Stephan Ewen  于2019年7月24日周三 上午12:07写道：
> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> Sorry for the late involvement. Here are some thoughts from my side:
>> 
>> Definitely +1 to publishing to PyPy, even if it is a binary release.
>> Community growth into other communities is great, and if this is the
>> natural way to reach developers in the Python community, let's do it. This
>> is not about our convenience, but reaching users.
>> 
>> I think the way to look at this is that this is a convenience distribution
>> channel, courtesy of the Flink community. It is not an Apache release, we
>> make this clear in the Readme.
>> Of course, this doesn't mean we don't try to uphold similar standards as
>> for our official release (like proper license information).
>> 
>> Concerning credentials sharing, I would be fine with whatever option. The
>> PMC doesn't own it (it is an initiative by some community members), but the
>> PMC needs to ensure trademark compliance, so slight preference for option
>> #1 (PMC would have means to correct problems).
>> 
>> I believe there is no need to differentiate between Scala versions, because
>> this is merely a convenience thing for pure Python users. Users that mix
>> python and scala (and thus depend on specific scala versions) can still
>> download from Apache or build themselves.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Stephan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:51 AM jincheng sun 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the feedback @Chesnay Schepler  @Dian!
>>> 
>>> I think using `apache-flink` for the project name also makes sense to me.
>>> due to we should always keep in mind that Flink is owned by Apache. (And
>>> beam also using this pattern `apache-beam` for Python API)
>>> 
>>> Regarding the Python API release with the JAVA JARs, I think the
>> principle
>>> of consideration is the convenience of the user. So, Thanks for the
>>> explanation @Dian!
>>> 
>>> And your right @Chesnay Schepler   we can't make a
>>> hasty decision and we need more people's opinions！
>>> 
>>> So, I appreciate it if anyone can give us feedback and suggestions!
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Jincheng
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Chesnay Schepler  于2019年7月3日周三 下午8:46写道：
>>> 
 So this would not be a source release then, but a full-blown binary
 release.
 
 Maybe it is just me, but I find it a bit suspect to ship an entire java
 application via PyPI, just because there's a Python API for it.
 
 We definitely need input from more people here.
 
 On 03/07/2019 14:09, Dian Fu wrote:
> Hi Chesnay,
> 
> Thanks a lot for the suggestions.
> 
> Regarding “distributing java/scala code to PyPI”:
> The Python Table API is just a wrapper of the Java Table API and
>>> without
 the java/scala code, two steps will be needed to set up an environment
>> to
 execute a Python Table API program:
> 1) Install pyflink using "pip install apache-flink"
> 2) Download the flink distribution and set the FLINK_HOME to it.
> Besides, users have to make sure that the manually installed Flink is
 compatible with the pip installed pyflink.
> 
> Bundle the java/scala code inside the Python package will eliminate
>>> step
 2) and makes it more simple for users to install pyflink. There was a
>>> short
 discussion  on this
>> in
 Spark community and they finally decide to package the java/scala code
>> in
 the python package. (BTW, PySpark only bundle the jars of scala 2.11).
> 
> Regards,
> Dian
> 
>> 在 2019年7月3日，下午7:13，Chesnay Schepler  写道：
>> 
>> The existing artifact in the pyflink project was neither released by
 the Flink project / anyone affiliated with it nor approved by the Flink
>>> PMC.
>> 
>> As such, if we were to use this account I believe we should delete
>> it

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[Jeff Zhang]

+1 for publishing pyflink to pypi.

Regarding including jar, I just want to make sure which flink binary
distribution we would ship with pyflink since we have multiple flink binary
distributions (w/o hadoop).
Personally, I prefer to use the hadoop-included binary distribution.

And I just want to confirm whether it is possible for users to use a
different flink binary distribution as long as he set env FLINK_HOME.

Besides that, I hope that there will be bi-direction link reference between
flink doc and pypi doc.



Stephan Ewen  于2019年7月24日周三 上午12:07写道：

> Hi!
>
> Sorry for the late involvement. Here are some thoughts from my side:
>
> Definitely +1 to publishing to PyPy, even if it is a binary release.
> Community growth into other communities is great, and if this is the
> natural way to reach developers in the Python community, let's do it. This
> is not about our convenience, but reaching users.
>
> I think the way to look at this is that this is a convenience distribution
> channel, courtesy of the Flink community. It is not an Apache release, we
> make this clear in the Readme.
> Of course, this doesn't mean we don't try to uphold similar standards as
> for our official release (like proper license information).
>
> Concerning credentials sharing, I would be fine with whatever option. The
> PMC doesn't own it (it is an initiative by some community members), but the
> PMC needs to ensure trademark compliance, so slight preference for option
> #1 (PMC would have means to correct problems).
>
> I believe there is no need to differentiate between Scala versions, because
> this is merely a convenience thing for pure Python users. Users that mix
> python and scala (and thus depend on specific scala versions) can still
> download from Apache or build themselves.
>
> Best,
> Stephan
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:51 AM jincheng sun 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback @Chesnay Schepler  @Dian!
> >
> > I think using `apache-flink` for the project name also makes sense to me.
> > due to we should always keep in mind that Flink is owned by Apache. (And
> > beam also using this pattern `apache-beam` for Python API)
> >
> > Regarding the Python API release with the JAVA JARs, I think the
> principle
> > of consideration is the convenience of the user. So, Thanks for the
> > explanation @Dian!
> >
> > And your right @Chesnay Schepler   we can't make a
> > hasty decision and we need more people's opinions！
> >
> > So, I appreciate it if anyone can give us feedback and suggestions!
> >
> > Best,
> > Jincheng
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Chesnay Schepler  于2019年7月3日周三 下午8:46写道：
> >
> > > So this would not be a source release then, but a full-blown binary
> > > release.
> > >
> > > Maybe it is just me, but I find it a bit suspect to ship an entire java
> > > application via PyPI, just because there's a Python API for it.
> > >
> > > We definitely need input from more people here.
> > >
> > > On 03/07/2019 14:09, Dian Fu wrote:
> > > > Hi Chesnay,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for the suggestions.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding “distributing java/scala code to PyPI”:
> > > > The Python Table API is just a wrapper of the Java Table API and
> > without
> > > the java/scala code, two steps will be needed to set up an environment
> to
> > > execute a Python Table API program:
> > > > 1) Install pyflink using "pip install apache-flink"
> > > > 2) Download the flink distribution and set the FLINK_HOME to it.
> > > > Besides, users have to make sure that the manually installed Flink is
> > > compatible with the pip installed pyflink.
> > > >
> > > > Bundle the java/scala code inside the Python package will eliminate
> > step
> > > 2) and makes it more simple for users to install pyflink. There was a
> > short
> > > discussion  on this
> in
> > > Spark community and they finally decide to package the java/scala code
> in
> > > the python package. (BTW, PySpark only bundle the jars of scala 2.11).
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Dian
> > > >
> > > >> 在 2019年7月3日，下午7:13，Chesnay Schepler  写道：
> > > >>
> > > >> The existing artifact in the pyflink project was neither released by
> > > the Flink project / anyone affiliated with it nor approved by the Flink
> > PMC.
> > > >>
> > > >> As such, if we were to use this account I believe we should delete
> it
> > > to not mislead users that this is in any way an apache-provided
> > > distribution. Since this goes against the users wishes, I would be in
> > favor
> > > of creating a separate account, and giving back control over the
> pyflink
> > > account.
> > > >>
> > > >> My take on the raised points:
> > > >> 1.1) "apache-flink"
> > > >> 1.2)  option 2
> > > >> 2) Given that we only distribute python code there should be no
> reason
> > > to differentiate between scala versions. We should not be distributing
> > any
> > > java/scala code and/or modules to PyPi. Currently, I'm a bit confused
> > about
> > > this question and 

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[Stephan Ewen]

Hi!

Sorry for the late involvement. Here are some thoughts from my side:

Definitely +1 to publishing to PyPy, even if it is a binary release.
Community growth into other communities is great, and if this is the
natural way to reach developers in the Python community, let's do it. This
is not about our convenience, but reaching users.

I think the way to look at this is that this is a convenience distribution
channel, courtesy of the Flink community. It is not an Apache release, we
make this clear in the Readme.
Of course, this doesn't mean we don't try to uphold similar standards as
for our official release (like proper license information).

Concerning credentials sharing, I would be fine with whatever option. The
PMC doesn't own it (it is an initiative by some community members), but the
PMC needs to ensure trademark compliance, so slight preference for option
#1 (PMC would have means to correct problems).

I believe there is no need to differentiate between Scala versions, because
this is merely a convenience thing for pure Python users. Users that mix
python and scala (and thus depend on specific scala versions) can still
download from Apache or build themselves.

Best,
Stephan



On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:51 AM jincheng sun 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for the feedback @Chesnay Schepler  @Dian!
>
> I think using `apache-flink` for the project name also makes sense to me.
> due to we should always keep in mind that Flink is owned by Apache. (And
> beam also using this pattern `apache-beam` for Python API)
>
> Regarding the Python API release with the JAVA JARs, I think the principle
> of consideration is the convenience of the user. So, Thanks for the
> explanation @Dian!
>
> And your right @Chesnay Schepler   we can't make a
> hasty decision and we need more people's opinions！
>
> So, I appreciate it if anyone can give us feedback and suggestions!
>
> Best,
> Jincheng
>
>
>
>
> Chesnay Schepler  于2019年7月3日周三 下午8:46写道：
>
> > So this would not be a source release then, but a full-blown binary
> > release.
> >
> > Maybe it is just me, but I find it a bit suspect to ship an entire java
> > application via PyPI, just because there's a Python API for it.
> >
> > We definitely need input from more people here.
> >
> > On 03/07/2019 14:09, Dian Fu wrote:
> > > Hi Chesnay,
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for the suggestions.
> > >
> > > Regarding “distributing java/scala code to PyPI”:
> > > The Python Table API is just a wrapper of the Java Table API and
> without
> > the java/scala code, two steps will be needed to set up an environment to
> > execute a Python Table API program:
> > > 1) Install pyflink using "pip install apache-flink"
> > > 2) Download the flink distribution and set the FLINK_HOME to it.
> > > Besides, users have to make sure that the manually installed Flink is
> > compatible with the pip installed pyflink.
> > >
> > > Bundle the java/scala code inside the Python package will eliminate
> step
> > 2) and makes it more simple for users to install pyflink. There was a
> short
> > discussion  on this in
> > Spark community and they finally decide to package the java/scala code in
> > the python package. (BTW, PySpark only bundle the jars of scala 2.11).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Dian
> > >
> > >> 在 2019年7月3日，下午7:13，Chesnay Schepler  写道：
> > >>
> > >> The existing artifact in the pyflink project was neither released by
> > the Flink project / anyone affiliated with it nor approved by the Flink
> PMC.
> > >>
> > >> As such, if we were to use this account I believe we should delete it
> > to not mislead users that this is in any way an apache-provided
> > distribution. Since this goes against the users wishes, I would be in
> favor
> > of creating a separate account, and giving back control over the pyflink
> > account.
> > >>
> > >> My take on the raised points:
> > >> 1.1) "apache-flink"
> > >> 1.2)  option 2
> > >> 2) Given that we only distribute python code there should be no reason
> > to differentiate between scala versions. We should not be distributing
> any
> > java/scala code and/or modules to PyPi. Currently, I'm a bit confused
> about
> > this question and wonder what exactly we are trying to publish here.
> > >> 3) The should be treated as any other source release; i.e., it needs a
> > LICENSE and NOTICE file, signatures and a PMC vote. My suggestion would
> be
> > to make this part of our normal release process. There will be _one_
> source
> > release on dist.apache.org encompassing everything, and a separate
> python
> > of focused source release that we push to PyPi. The LICENSE and NOTICE
> > contained in the python source release must also be present in the source
> > release of Flink; so basically the python source release is just the
> > contents of flink-python module the maven pom.xml, with no other special
> > sauce added during the release process.
> > >>
> > >> On 02/07/2019 05:42, jincheng sun wrote:
> > >>> Hi all,
> > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[jincheng sun]

Hi All,

Thanks for the feedback @Chesnay Schepler  @Dian!

I think using `apache-flink` for the project name also makes sense to me.
due to we should always keep in mind that Flink is owned by Apache. (And
beam also using this pattern `apache-beam` for Python API)

Regarding the Python API release with the JAVA JARs, I think the principle
of consideration is the convenience of the user. So, Thanks for the
explanation @Dian!

And your right @Chesnay Schepler   we can't make a
hasty decision and we need more people's opinions！

So, I appreciate it if anyone can give us feedback and suggestions!

Best,
Jincheng




Chesnay Schepler  于2019年7月3日周三 下午8:46写道：

> So this would not be a source release then, but a full-blown binary
> release.
>
> Maybe it is just me, but I find it a bit suspect to ship an entire java
> application via PyPI, just because there's a Python API for it.
>
> We definitely need input from more people here.
>
> On 03/07/2019 14:09, Dian Fu wrote:
> > Hi Chesnay,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the suggestions.
> >
> > Regarding “distributing java/scala code to PyPI”:
> > The Python Table API is just a wrapper of the Java Table API and without
> the java/scala code, two steps will be needed to set up an environment to
> execute a Python Table API program:
> > 1) Install pyflink using "pip install apache-flink"
> > 2) Download the flink distribution and set the FLINK_HOME to it.
> > Besides, users have to make sure that the manually installed Flink is
> compatible with the pip installed pyflink.
> >
> > Bundle the java/scala code inside the Python package will eliminate step
> 2) and makes it more simple for users to install pyflink. There was a short
> discussion  on this in
> Spark community and they finally decide to package the java/scala code in
> the python package. (BTW, PySpark only bundle the jars of scala 2.11).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dian
> >
> >> 在 2019年7月3日，下午7:13，Chesnay Schepler  写道：
> >>
> >> The existing artifact in the pyflink project was neither released by
> the Flink project / anyone affiliated with it nor approved by the Flink PMC.
> >>
> >> As such, if we were to use this account I believe we should delete it
> to not mislead users that this is in any way an apache-provided
> distribution. Since this goes against the users wishes, I would be in favor
> of creating a separate account, and giving back control over the pyflink
> account.
> >>
> >> My take on the raised points:
> >> 1.1) "apache-flink"
> >> 1.2)  option 2
> >> 2) Given that we only distribute python code there should be no reason
> to differentiate between scala versions. We should not be distributing any
> java/scala code and/or modules to PyPi. Currently, I'm a bit confused about
> this question and wonder what exactly we are trying to publish here.
> >> 3) The should be treated as any other source release; i.e., it needs a
> LICENSE and NOTICE file, signatures and a PMC vote. My suggestion would be
> to make this part of our normal release process. There will be _one_ source
> release on dist.apache.org encompassing everything, and a separate python
> of focused source release that we push to PyPi. The LICENSE and NOTICE
> contained in the python source release must also be present in the source
> release of Flink; so basically the python source release is just the
> contents of flink-python module the maven pom.xml, with no other special
> sauce added during the release process.
> >>
> >> On 02/07/2019 05:42, jincheng sun wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> With the effort of FLIP-38 [1], the Python Table API(without UDF
> support
> >>> for now) will be supported in the coming release-1.9.
> >>> As described in "Build PyFlink"[2], if users want to use the Python
> Table
> >>> API, they can manually install it using the command:
> >>> "cd flink-python && python3 setup.py sdist && pip install
> dist/*.tar.gz".
> >>>
> >>> This is non-trivial for users and it will be better if we can follow
> the
> >>> Python way to publish PyFlink to PyPI
> >>> which is a repository of software for the Python programming language.
> Then
> >>> users can use the standard Python package
> >>> manager "pip" to install PyFlink: "pip install pyflink". So, there are
> some
> >>> topic need to be discussed as follows:
> >>>
> >>> 1. How to publish PyFlink to PyPI
> >>>
> >>> 1.1 Project Name
> >>>   We need to decide the project name of PyPI to use, for example,
> >>> apache-flink,  pyflink, etc.
> >>>
> >>>  Regarding to the name "pyflink", it has already been registered by
> >>> @ueqt and there is already a package '1.0' released under this project
> >>> which is based on flink-libraries/flink-python.
> >>>
> >>> @ueqt has kindly agreed to give this project back to the
> community. And
> >>> he has requested that the released package '1.0' should not be removed
> as
> >>> it has already been used in their company.
> >>>
> >>>  So we need to decide whether to use the name 

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[Chesnay Schepler]

So this would not be a source release then, but a full-blown binary release.

Maybe it is just me, but I find it a bit suspect to ship an entire java 
application via PyPI, just because there's a Python API for it.


We definitely need input from more people here.

On 03/07/2019 14:09, Dian Fu wrote:

Hi Chesnay,

Thanks a lot for the suggestions.

Regarding “distributing java/scala code to PyPI”:
The Python Table API is just a wrapper of the Java Table API and without the 
java/scala code, two steps will be needed to set up an environment to execute a 
Python Table API program:
1) Install pyflink using "pip install apache-flink"
2) Download the flink distribution and set the FLINK_HOME to it.
Besides, users have to make sure that the manually installed Flink is 
compatible with the pip installed pyflink.

Bundle the java/scala code inside the Python package will eliminate step 2) and makes 
it more simple for users to install pyflink. There was a short discussion 
 on this in Spark community 
and they finally decide to package the java/scala code in the python package. (BTW, 
PySpark only bundle the jars of scala 2.11).

Regards,
Dian


在 2019年7月3日，下午7:13，Chesnay Schepler  写道：

The existing artifact in the pyflink project was neither released by the Flink 
project / anyone affiliated with it nor approved by the Flink PMC.

As such, if we were to use this account I believe we should delete it to not 
mislead users that this is in any way an apache-provided distribution. Since 
this goes against the users wishes, I would be in favor of creating a separate 
account, and giving back control over the pyflink account.

My take on the raised points:
1.1) "apache-flink"
1.2)  option 2
2) Given that we only distribute python code there should be no reason to 
differentiate between scala versions. We should not be distributing any 
java/scala code and/or modules to PyPi. Currently, I'm a bit confused about 
this question and wonder what exactly we are trying to publish here.
3) The should be treated as any other source release; i.e., it needs a LICENSE 
and NOTICE file, signatures and a PMC vote. My suggestion would be to make this 
part of our normal release process. There will be _one_ source release on 
dist.apache.org encompassing everything, and a separate python of focused 
source release that we push to PyPi. The LICENSE and NOTICE contained in the 
python source release must also be present in the source release of Flink; so 
basically the python source release is just the contents of flink-python module 
the maven pom.xml, with no other special sauce added during the release process.

On 02/07/2019 05:42, jincheng sun wrote:

Hi all,

With the effort of FLIP-38 [1], the Python Table API(without UDF support
for now) will be supported in the coming release-1.9.
As described in "Build PyFlink"[2], if users want to use the Python Table
API, they can manually install it using the command:
"cd flink-python && python3 setup.py sdist && pip install dist/*.tar.gz".

This is non-trivial for users and it will be better if we can follow the
Python way to publish PyFlink to PyPI
which is a repository of software for the Python programming language. Then
users can use the standard Python package
manager "pip" to install PyFlink: "pip install pyflink". So, there are some
topic need to be discussed as follows:

1. How to publish PyFlink to PyPI

1.1 Project Name
  We need to decide the project name of PyPI to use, for example,
apache-flink,  pyflink, etc.

 Regarding to the name "pyflink", it has already been registered by
@ueqt and there is already a package '1.0' released under this project
which is based on flink-libraries/flink-python.

@ueqt has kindly agreed to give this project back to the community. And
he has requested that the released package '1.0' should not be removed as
it has already been used in their company.

 So we need to decide whether to use the name 'pyflink'?  If yes, we
need to figure out how to tackle with the package '1.0' under this project.

 From the points of my view, the "pyflink" is better for our project
name and we can keep the release of 1.0, maybe more people want to use.

1.2 PyPI account for release
 We need also decide on which account to use to publish packages to PyPI.

 There are two permissions in PyPI: owner and maintainer:

 1) The owner can upload releases, delete files, releases or the entire
project.
 2) The maintainer can also upload releases. However, they cannot delete
files, releases, or the project.

 So there are two options in my mind:

 1) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as the owner share it with all
the release managers and then release managers can publish the package to
PyPI using this account.
 2) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as owner(only PMC can manage it)
and adds the release manager's account as maintainers of the project.
Release managers publish 

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[Dian Fu]

Hi Chesnay,

Thanks a lot for the suggestions.

Regarding “distributing java/scala code to PyPI”:
The Python Table API is just a wrapper of the Java Table API and without the 
java/scala code, two steps will be needed to set up an environment to execute a 
Python Table API program:
1) Install pyflink using "pip install apache-flink" 
2) Download the flink distribution and set the FLINK_HOME to it.
Besides, users have to make sure that the manually installed Flink is 
compatible with the pip installed pyflink. 

Bundle the java/scala code inside the Python package will eliminate step 2) and 
makes it more simple for users to install pyflink. There was a short discussion 
 on this in Spark community 
and they finally decide to package the java/scala code in the python package. 
(BTW, PySpark only bundle the jars of scala 2.11).

Regards,
Dian 

> 在 2019年7月3日，下午7:13，Chesnay Schepler  写道：
> 
> The existing artifact in the pyflink project was neither released by the 
> Flink project / anyone affiliated with it nor approved by the Flink PMC.
> 
> As such, if we were to use this account I believe we should delete it to not 
> mislead users that this is in any way an apache-provided distribution. Since 
> this goes against the users wishes, I would be in favor of creating a 
> separate account, and giving back control over the pyflink account.
> 
> My take on the raised points:
> 1.1) "apache-flink"
> 1.2)  option 2
> 2) Given that we only distribute python code there should be no reason to 
> differentiate between scala versions. We should not be distributing any 
> java/scala code and/or modules to PyPi. Currently, I'm a bit confused about 
> this question and wonder what exactly we are trying to publish here.
> 3) The should be treated as any other source release; i.e., it needs a 
> LICENSE and NOTICE file, signatures and a PMC vote. My suggestion would be to 
> make this part of our normal release process. There will be _one_ source 
> release on dist.apache.org encompassing everything, and a separate python of 
> focused source release that we push to PyPi. The LICENSE and NOTICE contained 
> in the python source release must also be present in the source release of 
> Flink; so basically the python source release is just the contents of 
> flink-python module the maven pom.xml, with no other special sauce added 
> during the release process.
> 
> On 02/07/2019 05:42, jincheng sun wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> With the effort of FLIP-38 [1], the Python Table API(without UDF support
>> for now) will be supported in the coming release-1.9.
>> As described in "Build PyFlink"[2], if users want to use the Python Table
>> API, they can manually install it using the command:
>> "cd flink-python && python3 setup.py sdist && pip install dist/*.tar.gz".
>> 
>> This is non-trivial for users and it will be better if we can follow the
>> Python way to publish PyFlink to PyPI
>> which is a repository of software for the Python programming language. Then
>> users can use the standard Python package
>> manager "pip" to install PyFlink: "pip install pyflink". So, there are some
>> topic need to be discussed as follows:
>> 
>> 1. How to publish PyFlink to PyPI
>> 
>> 1.1 Project Name
>>  We need to decide the project name of PyPI to use, for example,
>> apache-flink,  pyflink, etc.
>> 
>> Regarding to the name "pyflink", it has already been registered by
>> @ueqt and there is already a package '1.0' released under this project
>> which is based on flink-libraries/flink-python.
>> 
>>@ueqt has kindly agreed to give this project back to the community. And
>> he has requested that the released package '1.0' should not be removed as
>> it has already been used in their company.
>> 
>> So we need to decide whether to use the name 'pyflink'?  If yes, we
>> need to figure out how to tackle with the package '1.0' under this project.
>> 
>> From the points of my view, the "pyflink" is better for our project
>> name and we can keep the release of 1.0, maybe more people want to use.
>> 
>> 1.2 PyPI account for release
>> We need also decide on which account to use to publish packages to PyPI.
>> 
>> There are two permissions in PyPI: owner and maintainer:
>> 
>> 1) The owner can upload releases, delete files, releases or the entire
>> project.
>> 2) The maintainer can also upload releases. However, they cannot delete
>> files, releases, or the project.
>> 
>> So there are two options in my mind:
>> 
>> 1) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as the owner share it with all
>> the release managers and then release managers can publish the package to
>> PyPI using this account.
>> 2) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as owner(only PMC can manage it)
>> and adds the release manager's account as maintainers of the project.
>> Release managers publish the package to PyPI using their own account.
>> 
>> As I know, PySpark takes Option 1) and 

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[Chesnay Schepler]

The existing artifact in the pyflink project was neither released by the 
Flink project / anyone affiliated with it nor approved by the Flink PMC.


As such, if we were to use this account I believe we should delete it to 
not mislead users that this is in any way an apache-provided 
distribution. Since this goes against the users wishes, I would be in 
favor of creating a separate account, and giving back control over the 
pyflink account.


My take on the raised points:
1.1) "apache-flink"
1.2)  option 2
2) Given that we only distribute python code there should be no reason 
to differentiate between scala versions. We should not be distributing 
any java/scala code and/or modules to PyPi. Currently, I'm a bit 
confused about this question and wonder what exactly we are trying to 
publish here.
3) The should be treated as any other source release; i.e., it needs a 
LICENSE and NOTICE file, signatures and a PMC vote. My suggestion would 
be to make this part of our normal release process. There will be _one_ 
source release on dist.apache.org encompassing everything, and a 
separate python of focused source release that we push to PyPi. The 
LICENSE and NOTICE contained in the python source release must also be 
present in the source release of Flink; so basically the python source 
release is just the contents of flink-python module the maven pom.xml, 
with no other special sauce added during the release process.


On 02/07/2019 05:42, jincheng sun wrote:

Hi all,

With the effort of FLIP-38 [1], the Python Table API(without UDF support
for now) will be supported in the coming release-1.9.
As described in "Build PyFlink"[2], if users want to use the Python Table
API, they can manually install it using the command:
"cd flink-python && python3 setup.py sdist && pip install dist/*.tar.gz".

This is non-trivial for users and it will be better if we can follow the
Python way to publish PyFlink to PyPI
which is a repository of software for the Python programming language. Then
users can use the standard Python package
manager "pip" to install PyFlink: "pip install pyflink". So, there are some
topic need to be discussed as follows:

1. How to publish PyFlink to PyPI

1.1 Project Name
  We need to decide the project name of PyPI to use, for example,
apache-flink,  pyflink, etc.

 Regarding to the name "pyflink", it has already been registered by
@ueqt and there is already a package '1.0' released under this project
which is based on flink-libraries/flink-python.

@ueqt has kindly agreed to give this project back to the community. And
he has requested that the released package '1.0' should not be removed as
it has already been used in their company.

 So we need to decide whether to use the name 'pyflink'?  If yes, we
need to figure out how to tackle with the package '1.0' under this project.

 From the points of my view, the "pyflink" is better for our project
name and we can keep the release of 1.0, maybe more people want to use.

1.2 PyPI account for release
 We need also decide on which account to use to publish packages to PyPI.

 There are two permissions in PyPI: owner and maintainer:

 1) The owner can upload releases, delete files, releases or the entire
project.
 2) The maintainer can also upload releases. However, they cannot delete
files, releases, or the project.

 So there are two options in my mind:

 1) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as the owner share it with all
the release managers and then release managers can publish the package to
PyPI using this account.
 2) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as owner(only PMC can manage it)
and adds the release manager's account as maintainers of the project.
Release managers publish the package to PyPI using their own account.

 As I know, PySpark takes Option 1) and Apache Beam takes Option 2).

 From the points of my view, I prefer option 2) as it's pretty safer as
it eliminate the risk of deleting old releases occasionally and at the same
time keeps the trace of who is operating.

2. How to handle Scala_2.11 and Scala_2.12

The PyFlink package bundles the jars in the package. As we know, there are
two versions of jars for each module: one for Scala 2.11 and the other for
Scala 2.12. So there will be two PyFlink packages theoretically. We need to
decide which one to publish to PyPI or both. If both packages will be
published to PyPI, we may need two projects, such as pyflink_211 and
pyflink_212 separately. Maybe more in the future such as pyflink_213.

 (BTW, I think we should bring up a discussion for dorp Scala_2.11 in
Flink 1.10 release due to 2.13 is available in early June.)

 From the points of my view, for now, we can only release the scala_2.11
version, due to scala_2.11 is our default version in Flink.

3. Legal problems of publishing to PyPI

As @Chesnay Schepler   pointed out in FLINK-13011[3],
publishing PyFlink to PyPI means that we will publish binaries to a
distribution 

[DISCUSS] Publish the PyFlink into PyPI

[jincheng sun]

Hi all,

With the effort of FLIP-38 [1], the Python Table API(without UDF support
for now) will be supported in the coming release-1.9.
As described in "Build PyFlink"[2], if users want to use the Python Table
API, they can manually install it using the command:
"cd flink-python && python3 setup.py sdist && pip install dist/*.tar.gz".

This is non-trivial for users and it will be better if we can follow the
Python way to publish PyFlink to PyPI
which is a repository of software for the Python programming language. Then
users can use the standard Python package
manager "pip" to install PyFlink: "pip install pyflink". So, there are some
topic need to be discussed as follows:

1. How to publish PyFlink to PyPI

1.1 Project Name
 We need to decide the project name of PyPI to use, for example,
apache-flink,  pyflink, etc.

Regarding to the name "pyflink", it has already been registered by
@ueqt and there is already a package '1.0' released under this project
which is based on flink-libraries/flink-python.

   @ueqt has kindly agreed to give this project back to the community. And
he has requested that the released package '1.0' should not be removed as
it has already been used in their company.

So we need to decide whether to use the name 'pyflink'?  If yes, we
need to figure out how to tackle with the package '1.0' under this project.

From the points of my view, the "pyflink" is better for our project
name and we can keep the release of 1.0, maybe more people want to use.

1.2 PyPI account for release
We need also decide on which account to use to publish packages to PyPI.

There are two permissions in PyPI: owner and maintainer:

1) The owner can upload releases, delete files, releases or the entire
project.
2) The maintainer can also upload releases. However, they cannot delete
files, releases, or the project.

So there are two options in my mind:

1) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as the owner share it with all
the release managers and then release managers can publish the package to
PyPI using this account.
2) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as owner(only PMC can manage it)
and adds the release manager's account as maintainers of the project.
Release managers publish the package to PyPI using their own account.

As I know, PySpark takes Option 1) and Apache Beam takes Option 2).

From the points of my view, I prefer option 2) as it's pretty safer as
it eliminate the risk of deleting old releases occasionally and at the same
time keeps the trace of who is operating.

2. How to handle Scala_2.11 and Scala_2.12

The PyFlink package bundles the jars in the package. As we know, there are
two versions of jars for each module: one for Scala 2.11 and the other for
Scala 2.12. So there will be two PyFlink packages theoretically. We need to
decide which one to publish to PyPI or both. If both packages will be
published to PyPI, we may need two projects, such as pyflink_211 and
pyflink_212 separately. Maybe more in the future such as pyflink_213.

(BTW, I think we should bring up a discussion for dorp Scala_2.11 in
Flink 1.10 release due to 2.13 is available in early June.)

From the points of my view, for now, we can only release the scala_2.11
version, due to scala_2.11 is our default version in Flink.

3. Legal problems of publishing to PyPI

As @Chesnay Schepler   pointed out in FLINK-13011[3],
publishing PyFlink to PyPI means that we will publish binaries to a
distribution channel not owned by Apache. We need to figure out if there
are legal problems. From my point of view, there are no problems as a few
Apache projects such as Spark, Beam, etc have already done it. Frankly
speaking, I am not familiar with this problem, welcome any feedback on this
if somebody is more family with this.

Great thanks to @ueqt for willing to dedicate PyPI's project name `pyflink`
to the Apache Flink community!!!
Great thanks to @Dian for the offline effort!!!

Best,
Jincheng

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-38%3A+Python+Table+API
[2]
https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/flinkDev/building.html#build-pyflink
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-13011