Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Weiwei Yang]

Hi Wilfred
Thank you for the updates!

On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 9:57 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg 
wrote:

> After some further discussion and some new insights some of us think the
> choice for a v1.0 is not the right thing at the moment. We think that we
> need one further release v0.12.0 before a v1.0.0 release by the end of the
> first quarter next year. The content and planning of the current release
> has not changed. Just the version number we link to this release will
> change.
>
> We have added a couple of large changes like K8s v1.20 dependency support
> in [1]. Message changes between the shim and core in [2]. Node sorting
> changes in [3].
> K8s has already released two later versions from which K8s v1.22 has some
> API changes that affect us. It also moves to a later version of protobuf
> and gRPC. These two changes have a significant impact on the code and build
> process. We need to make those changes as part of a v1.0 release and not as
> part of a minor release after v1.0.
> The predicate implementation using the scheduling framework was required
> for K8s v1.20. It has opened up the possibility to move YuniKorn in the
> direction of the framework for a more seamless integration into K8s. A POC
> is currently on its way and the hope is to have that as part of v1.0.
>
> I will start updating jira project and move the jiras to the new release
> from today. This does not have an impact on any of the work that is
> ongoing.
>
> Wilfred
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-872
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-337
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-780
>
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 18:04, Wilfred Spiegelenburg 
> wrote:
>
> > I saw that we already have a JIRA filter for 1.0
> >> .
> >>
> >
> > The release and version information is only available if and when you are
> > authenticated to jira. That excludes people.
> > For unauthenticated access it is better to use searches like the ones
> > already available:
> > Current release target:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12348416
> > Fixed in 1.0.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12350818
> > These links we can also include in a release preparation page on the
> > website.
> >
> > It does come back to properly using the "target version" and "fixed in
> > version" fields.
> > Using the fixed in version field for release planning causes issues as it
> > requires bulk updates for issues that miss a release.
> > If the issue slips the release it has to be updated otherwise the release
> > note shows issues as included while they are still open.
> > Using two fields allows us to target a fix for an issue in a release
> > without impacting the release notes.
> > It will become more important when we start creating maintenance releases
> > on top of older releases with backports.
> >
> > Wilfred
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Wilfred Spiegelenburg]

After some further discussion and some new insights some of us think the
choice for a v1.0 is not the right thing at the moment. We think that we
need one further release v0.12.0 before a v1.0.0 release by the end of the
first quarter next year. The content and planning of the current release
has not changed. Just the version number we link to this release will
change.

We have added a couple of large changes like K8s v1.20 dependency support
in [1]. Message changes between the shim and core in [2]. Node sorting
changes in [3].
K8s has already released two later versions from which K8s v1.22 has some
API changes that affect us. It also moves to a later version of protobuf
and gRPC. These two changes have a significant impact on the code and build
process. We need to make those changes as part of a v1.0 release and not as
part of a minor release after v1.0.
The predicate implementation using the scheduling framework was required
for K8s v1.20. It has opened up the possibility to move YuniKorn in the
direction of the framework for a more seamless integration into K8s. A POC
is currently on its way and the hope is to have that as part of v1.0.

I will start updating jira project and move the jiras to the new release
from today. This does not have an impact on any of the work that is ongoing.

Wilfred

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-872
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-337
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-780

On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 18:04, Wilfred Spiegelenburg 
wrote:

> I saw that we already have a JIRA filter for 1.0
>> .
>>
>
> The release and version information is only available if and when you are
> authenticated to jira. That excludes people.
> For unauthenticated access it is better to use searches like the ones
> already available:
> Current release target:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12348416
> Fixed in 1.0.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12350818
> These links we can also include in a release preparation page on the
> website.
>
> It does come back to properly using the "target version" and "fixed in
> version" fields.
> Using the fixed in version field for release planning causes issues as it
> requires bulk updates for issues that miss a release.
> If the issue slips the release it has to be updated otherwise the release
> note shows issues as included while they are still open.
> Using two fields allows us to target a fix for an issue in a release
> without impacting the release notes.
> It will become more important when we start creating maintenance releases
> on top of older releases with backports.
>
> Wilfred
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Wilfred Spiegelenburg]

>
> I saw that we already have a JIRA filter for 1.0
> .
>

The release and version information is only available if and when you are
authenticated to jira. That excludes people.
For unauthenticated access it is better to use searches like the ones
already available:
Current release target:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12348416
Fixed in 1.0.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12350818
These links we can also include in a release preparation page on the
website.

It does come back to properly using the "target version" and "fixed in
version" fields.
Using the fixed in version field for release planning causes issues as it
requires bulk updates for issues that miss a release.
If the issue slips the release it has to be updated otherwise the release
note shows issues as included while they are still open.
Using two fields allows us to target a fix for an issue in a release
without impacting the release notes.
It will become more important when we start creating maintenance releases
on top of older releases with backports.

Wilfred

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Wilfred Spiegelenburg]

Thank you Chaoran for volunteering to be the release manager.
As with the previous releases I am here to help you through the process if
there are any questions.

Wilfred

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 17:51, Chaoran Yu  wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> I volunteer to be the release manager this time, if nobody else has
> volunteered already.
>
> The proposed timeline sounds right to be. It will allow for ample time for
> stabilization and verification.
>
> Chaoran
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM Weiwei Yang  wrote:
>
> > Hi Wilfred
> >
> > Thanks. Sounds good to me.
> > Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache way
> > encourages more people to get involved in the release process.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg <
> > wilfr...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We have been making big steps since our last release. Some major
> changes
> > > have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
> > > - rest API updates
> > > - new node storage and sorting
> > > - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
> > > - scheduler interface change
> > >
> > > Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance figures. This
> > > includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we can repeat
> > them
> > > when we want to.
> > >
> > > Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release to be
> > ready
> > > for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021. This
> will
> > > give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the release. A
> > > release for us is still a multistep project:
> > > - fork and prepare the release
> > > - vote in the project
> > > - vote in the incubator PMC
> > > Looking back at the last release cycles that means we should have a
> build
> > > ready for voting by 22 November on the dev list. Which would mean that
> we
> > > fork the release at the latest in the second week of November.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if the timeline is too ambitious or not ambitious
> > > enough.
> > >
> > > Wilfred
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Weiwei Yang]

Looks good, good to see all things are on track. Thanks!

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Chaoran Yu  wrote:

> FYI, I created YUNIKORN-908 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YUNIKORN-908> for the work to
> support k8s 1.21, tentatively targeted for v1.0.0 release.
> Also I saw that Kinga has this PR
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-yunikorn-k8shim/pull/271 <
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-yunikorn-k8shim/pull/271> that’s
> needed for dropping support for 1.18.
>
> YUNIKORN-891  is the
> umbrella JIRA for the upcoming release work that I’ll take on in about a
> month.
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 2021, at 17:10, Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chaoran/Sunil
> >
> > I don't think we have the wiki sort of thing.
> > For in-progress releases, we can use the JIRA tag to track, like Chaoran
> > pointed out:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/YUNIKORN/versions/12350288.
> > For released versions, we publish them to our website:
> > https://yunikorn.apache.org/community/download/.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:02 PM Chaoran Yu 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I saw that we already have a JIRA filter for 1.0
> >> .
> >> Sunil, where is the release Wiki supposed to be? I'll create one for 1.0
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 12:16 PM Sunil Govindan 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> Yes. Lets start the planning.
> >>>
> >>> Chaoran, @Chenya, and Wilfred,
> >>> Could we create a release wiki and place this timeline with a Jira
> >> filter?
> >>> I think it will be a good start for this entire process.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Sunil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:54 AM Chenya Zhang <
> >> chenyazhangche...@gmail.com
> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Great to see that we are going to have a new 1.0.0 release!
> 
>  I could help Chaoran and shadow this release. Would be interested in
>  becoming our next release manager but happy to take a fight when it
> >>> comes.
>  :D
> 
>  Will follow up on this thread for v1.0.0.
> 
>  Best,
>  Chenya
> 
>  On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:37 AM Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Craig
> >
> > I think officially supporting 3 major K8s versions should be enough,
> >>> but
>  we
> > need to update to 1.19, 1.20, and 1.21.
> > 1.18 is EoL per https://endoflife.date/kubernetes . If we continue
> >> our
> > release cadence, most likely we can move 1 major release at a time
> >> and
>  that
> > aligns with the K8s releases.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Craig Condit  >>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Looking forward to 1.0 release as well, and thanks Chaoran for
> >> volunteering to manage the release.
> >>
> >> Should we also update our supported version matrix to include 1.18,
>  1.19,
> >> 1.20, and 1.21? Updating the e2e test matrix should be a one-line
>  change,
> >> and as part of the rebuild against 1.20, I verified that 1.21 is
> > functional.
> >>
> >> Craig
> >>
> >>> On Oct 22, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Weiwei Yang 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sounds great, thank you Chaoran!
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chaoran Yu <
> >>> yuchaoran2...@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hey guys,
> 
>  I volunteer to be the release manager this time, if nobody else
> >>> has
>  volunteered already.
> 
>  The proposed timeline sounds right to be. It will allow for
> >> ample
>  time
> >> for
>  stabilization and verification.
> 
>  Chaoran
> 
> 
>  On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM Weiwei Yang 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Wilfred
> >
> > Thanks. Sounds good to me.
> > Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache
> >>> way
> > encourages more people to get involved in the release process.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg <
> > wilfr...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> We have been making big steps since our last release. Some
> >> major
>  changes
> >> have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
> >> - rest API updates
> >> - new node storage and sorting
> >> - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
> >> - scheduler interface change
> >>
> >> Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance
> >> figures.
>  This
> >> includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we
> >> can
> > repeat
> > them
> >> when we want to.
> >>
> >> Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release
> >>> to
>  be
> > ready
> >> for a vote by the 

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Chaoran Yu]

FYI, I created YUNIKORN-908 
 for the work to support 
k8s 1.21, tentatively targeted for v1.0.0 release.
Also I saw that Kinga has this PR 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-yunikorn-k8shim/pull/271 
 that’s needed 
for dropping support for 1.18.

YUNIKORN-891  is the 
umbrella JIRA for the upcoming release work that I’ll take on in about a month.



> On Oct 22, 2021, at 17:10, Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> 
> Hi Chaoran/Sunil
> 
> I don't think we have the wiki sort of thing.
> For in-progress releases, we can use the JIRA tag to track, like Chaoran
> pointed out:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/YUNIKORN/versions/12350288.
> For released versions, we publish them to our website:
> https://yunikorn.apache.org/community/download/.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:02 PM Chaoran Yu  wrote:
> 
>> I saw that we already have a JIRA filter for 1.0
>> .
>> Sunil, where is the release Wiki supposed to be? I'll create one for 1.0
>> 
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 12:16 PM Sunil Govindan  wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> Yes. Lets start the planning.
>>> 
>>> Chaoran, @Chenya, and Wilfred,
>>> Could we create a release wiki and place this timeline with a Jira
>> filter?
>>> I think it will be a good start for this entire process.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Sunil
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:54 AM Chenya Zhang <
>> chenyazhangche...@gmail.com
 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Great to see that we are going to have a new 1.0.0 release!
 
 I could help Chaoran and shadow this release. Would be interested in
 becoming our next release manager but happy to take a fight when it
>>> comes.
 :D
 
 Will follow up on this thread for v1.0.0.
 
 Best,
 Chenya
 
 On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:37 AM Weiwei Yang  wrote:
 
> Hi Craig
> 
> I think officially supporting 3 major K8s versions should be enough,
>>> but
 we
> need to update to 1.19, 1.20, and 1.21.
> 1.18 is EoL per https://endoflife.date/kubernetes . If we continue
>> our
> release cadence, most likely we can move 1 major release at a time
>> and
 that
> aligns with the K8s releases.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Craig Condit >> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Looking forward to 1.0 release as well, and thanks Chaoran for
>> volunteering to manage the release.
>> 
>> Should we also update our supported version matrix to include 1.18,
 1.19,
>> 1.20, and 1.21? Updating the e2e test matrix should be a one-line
 change,
>> and as part of the rebuild against 1.20, I verified that 1.21 is
> functional.
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>>> On Oct 22, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Weiwei Yang 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sounds great, thank you Chaoran!
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chaoran Yu <
>>> yuchaoran2...@gmail.com
> 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hey guys,
 
 I volunteer to be the release manager this time, if nobody else
>>> has
 volunteered already.
 
 The proposed timeline sounds right to be. It will allow for
>> ample
 time
>> for
 stabilization and verification.
 
 Chaoran
 
 
 On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM Weiwei Yang 
 wrote:
 
> Hi Wilfred
> 
> Thanks. Sounds good to me.
> Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache
>>> way
> encourages more people to get involved in the release process.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg <
> wilfr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> We have been making big steps since our last release. Some
>> major
 changes
>> have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
>> - rest API updates
>> - new node storage and sorting
>> - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
>> - scheduler interface change
>> 
>> Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance
>> figures.
 This
>> includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we
>> can
> repeat
> them
>> when we want to.
>> 
>> Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release
>>> to
 be
> ready
>> for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021.
 This
 will
>> give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the
> release.
>> A
>> release for us is still a multistep project:
>> - fork and prepare the release
>> - vote in the project
>> - vote in the incubator PMC
>> Looking back at the last release 

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Weiwei Yang]

Hi Chaoran/Sunil

I don't think we have the wiki sort of thing.
For in-progress releases, we can use the JIRA tag to track, like Chaoran
pointed out:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/YUNIKORN/versions/12350288.
For released versions, we publish them to our website:
https://yunikorn.apache.org/community/download/.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:02 PM Chaoran Yu  wrote:

> I saw that we already have a JIRA filter for 1.0
> .
> Sunil, where is the release Wiki supposed to be? I'll create one for 1.0
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 12:16 PM Sunil Govindan  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Yes. Lets start the planning.
> >
> > Chaoran, @Chenya, and Wilfred,
> > Could we create a release wiki and place this timeline with a Jira
> filter?
> > I think it will be a good start for this entire process.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Sunil
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:54 AM Chenya Zhang <
> chenyazhangche...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Great to see that we are going to have a new 1.0.0 release!
> > >
> > > I could help Chaoran and shadow this release. Would be interested in
> > > becoming our next release manager but happy to take a fight when it
> > comes.
> > > :D
> > >
> > > Will follow up on this thread for v1.0.0.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Chenya
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:37 AM Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Craig
> > > >
> > > > I think officially supporting 3 major K8s versions should be enough,
> > but
> > > we
> > > > need to update to 1.19, 1.20, and 1.21.
> > > > 1.18 is EoL per https://endoflife.date/kubernetes . If we continue
> our
> > > > release cadence, most likely we can move 1 major release at a time
> and
> > > that
> > > > aligns with the K8s releases.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Craig Condit  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Looking forward to 1.0 release as well, and thanks Chaoran for
> > > > > volunteering to manage the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we also update our supported version matrix to include 1.18,
> > > 1.19,
> > > > > 1.20, and 1.21? Updating the e2e test matrix should be a one-line
> > > change,
> > > > > and as part of the rebuild against 1.20, I verified that 1.21 is
> > > > functional.
> > > > >
> > > > > Craig
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Oct 22, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Weiwei Yang 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds great, thank you Chaoran!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chaoran Yu <
> > yuchaoran2...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hey guys,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I volunteer to be the release manager this time, if nobody else
> > has
> > > > > >> volunteered already.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The proposed timeline sounds right to be. It will allow for
> ample
> > > time
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> stabilization and verification.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Chaoran
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM Weiwei Yang 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi Wilfred
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks. Sounds good to me.
> > > > > >>> Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache
> > way
> > > > > >>> encourages more people to get involved in the release process.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg <
> > > > > >>> wilfr...@apache.org>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >  Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > >  We have been making big steps since our last release. Some
> major
> > > > > >> changes
> > > > >  have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
> > > > >  - rest API updates
> > > > >  - new node storage and sorting
> > > > >  - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
> > > > >  - scheduler interface change
> > > > > 
> > > > >  Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance
> figures.
> > > This
> > > > >  includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we
> can
> > > > repeat
> > > > > >>> them
> > > > >  when we want to.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > >>> ready
> > > > >  for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021.
> > > This
> > > > > >> will
> > > > >  give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the
> > > > release.
> > > > > A
> > > > >  release for us is still a multistep project:
> > > > >  - fork and prepare the release
> > > > >  - vote in the project
> > > > >  - vote in the incubator PMC
> > > > >  Looking back at the last release cycles that means we should
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > >> build
> > > > >  ready for voting by 22 November on the dev list. Which would
> > mean
> > > > that
> > > > > >> we
> > > > >  fork the release at the latest in the second week of November.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  Please let me know if the timeline is too ambitious or not
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Chaoran Yu]

I saw that we already have a JIRA filter for 1.0
.
Sunil, where is the release Wiki supposed to be? I'll create one for 1.0

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 12:16 PM Sunil Govindan  wrote:

> +1
>
> Yes. Lets start the planning.
>
> Chaoran, @Chenya, and Wilfred,
> Could we create a release wiki and place this timeline with a Jira filter?
> I think it will be a good start for this entire process.
>
> Thanks
> Sunil
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:54 AM Chenya Zhang  >
> wrote:
>
> > Great to see that we are going to have a new 1.0.0 release!
> >
> > I could help Chaoran and shadow this release. Would be interested in
> > becoming our next release manager but happy to take a fight when it
> comes.
> > :D
> >
> > Will follow up on this thread for v1.0.0.
> >
> > Best,
> > Chenya
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:37 AM Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Craig
> > >
> > > I think officially supporting 3 major K8s versions should be enough,
> but
> > we
> > > need to update to 1.19, 1.20, and 1.21.
> > > 1.18 is EoL per https://endoflife.date/kubernetes . If we continue our
> > > release cadence, most likely we can move 1 major release at a time and
> > that
> > > aligns with the K8s releases.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Craig Condit 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looking forward to 1.0 release as well, and thanks Chaoran for
> > > > volunteering to manage the release.
> > > >
> > > > Should we also update our supported version matrix to include 1.18,
> > 1.19,
> > > > 1.20, and 1.21? Updating the e2e test matrix should be a one-line
> > change,
> > > > and as part of the rebuild against 1.20, I verified that 1.21 is
> > > functional.
> > > >
> > > > Craig
> > > >
> > > > > On Oct 22, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds great, thank you Chaoran!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chaoran Yu <
> yuchaoran2...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hey guys,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I volunteer to be the release manager this time, if nobody else
> has
> > > > >> volunteered already.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The proposed timeline sounds right to be. It will allow for ample
> > time
> > > > for
> > > > >> stabilization and verification.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Chaoran
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM Weiwei Yang 
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi Wilfred
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks. Sounds good to me.
> > > > >>> Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache
> way
> > > > >>> encourages more people to get involved in the release process.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg <
> > > > >>> wilfr...@apache.org>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > >  Hi,
> > > > 
> > > >  We have been making big steps since our last release. Some major
> > > > >> changes
> > > >  have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
> > > >  - rest API updates
> > > >  - new node storage and sorting
> > > >  - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
> > > >  - scheduler interface change
> > > > 
> > > >  Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance figures.
> > This
> > > >  includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we can
> > > repeat
> > > > >>> them
> > > >  when we want to.
> > > > 
> > > >  Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release
> to
> > be
> > > > >>> ready
> > > >  for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021.
> > This
> > > > >> will
> > > >  give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the
> > > release.
> > > > A
> > > >  release for us is still a multistep project:
> > > >  - fork and prepare the release
> > > >  - vote in the project
> > > >  - vote in the incubator PMC
> > > >  Looking back at the last release cycles that means we should
> have
> > a
> > > > >> build
> > > >  ready for voting by 22 November on the dev list. Which would
> mean
> > > that
> > > > >> we
> > > >  fork the release at the latest in the second week of November.
> > > > 
> > > >  Please let me know if the timeline is too ambitious or not
> > ambitious
> > > >  enough.
> > > > 
> > > >  Wilfred
> > > > 
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@yunikorn.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@yunikorn.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Sunil Govindan]

+1

Yes. Lets start the planning.

Chaoran, @Chenya, and Wilfred,
Could we create a release wiki and place this timeline with a Jira filter?
I think it will be a good start for this entire process.

Thanks
Sunil


On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:54 AM Chenya Zhang 
wrote:

> Great to see that we are going to have a new 1.0.0 release!
>
> I could help Chaoran and shadow this release. Would be interested in
> becoming our next release manager but happy to take a fight when it comes.
> :D
>
> Will follow up on this thread for v1.0.0.
>
> Best,
> Chenya
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:37 AM Weiwei Yang  wrote:
>
> > Hi Craig
> >
> > I think officially supporting 3 major K8s versions should be enough, but
> we
> > need to update to 1.19, 1.20, and 1.21.
> > 1.18 is EoL per https://endoflife.date/kubernetes . If we continue our
> > release cadence, most likely we can move 1 major release at a time and
> that
> > aligns with the K8s releases.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Craig Condit 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Looking forward to 1.0 release as well, and thanks Chaoran for
> > > volunteering to manage the release.
> > >
> > > Should we also update our supported version matrix to include 1.18,
> 1.19,
> > > 1.20, and 1.21? Updating the e2e test matrix should be a one-line
> change,
> > > and as part of the rebuild against 1.20, I verified that 1.21 is
> > functional.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > > On Oct 22, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds great, thank you Chaoran!
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chaoran Yu  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hey guys,
> > > >>
> > > >> I volunteer to be the release manager this time, if nobody else has
> > > >> volunteered already.
> > > >>
> > > >> The proposed timeline sounds right to be. It will allow for ample
> time
> > > for
> > > >> stabilization and verification.
> > > >>
> > > >> Chaoran
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM Weiwei Yang 
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Wilfred
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks. Sounds good to me.
> > > >>> Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache way
> > > >>> encourages more people to get involved in the release process.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg <
> > > >>> wilfr...@apache.org>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  Hi,
> > > 
> > >  We have been making big steps since our last release. Some major
> > > >> changes
> > >  have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
> > >  - rest API updates
> > >  - new node storage and sorting
> > >  - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
> > >  - scheduler interface change
> > > 
> > >  Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance figures.
> This
> > >  includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we can
> > repeat
> > > >>> them
> > >  when we want to.
> > > 
> > >  Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release to
> be
> > > >>> ready
> > >  for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021.
> This
> > > >> will
> > >  give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the
> > release.
> > > A
> > >  release for us is still a multistep project:
> > >  - fork and prepare the release
> > >  - vote in the project
> > >  - vote in the incubator PMC
> > >  Looking back at the last release cycles that means we should have
> a
> > > >> build
> > >  ready for voting by 22 November on the dev list. Which would mean
> > that
> > > >> we
> > >  fork the release at the latest in the second week of November.
> > > 
> > >  Please let me know if the timeline is too ambitious or not
> ambitious
> > >  enough.
> > > 
> > >  Wilfred
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@yunikorn.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@yunikorn.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Chenya Zhang]

Great to see that we are going to have a new 1.0.0 release!

I could help Chaoran and shadow this release. Would be interested in
becoming our next release manager but happy to take a fight when it comes.
:D

Will follow up on this thread for v1.0.0.

Best,
Chenya

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:37 AM Weiwei Yang  wrote:

> Hi Craig
>
> I think officially supporting 3 major K8s versions should be enough, but we
> need to update to 1.19, 1.20, and 1.21.
> 1.18 is EoL per https://endoflife.date/kubernetes . If we continue our
> release cadence, most likely we can move 1 major release at a time and that
> aligns with the K8s releases.
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Craig Condit 
> wrote:
>
> > Looking forward to 1.0 release as well, and thanks Chaoran for
> > volunteering to manage the release.
> >
> > Should we also update our supported version matrix to include 1.18, 1.19,
> > 1.20, and 1.21? Updating the e2e test matrix should be a one-line change,
> > and as part of the rebuild against 1.20, I verified that 1.21 is
> functional.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > > On Oct 22, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds great, thank you Chaoran!
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chaoran Yu 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey guys,
> > >>
> > >> I volunteer to be the release manager this time, if nobody else has
> > >> volunteered already.
> > >>
> > >> The proposed timeline sounds right to be. It will allow for ample time
> > for
> > >> stabilization and verification.
> > >>
> > >> Chaoran
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Wilfred
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks. Sounds good to me.
> > >>> Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache way
> > >>> encourages more people to get involved in the release process.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg <
> > >>> wilfr...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Hi,
> > 
> >  We have been making big steps since our last release. Some major
> > >> changes
> >  have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
> >  - rest API updates
> >  - new node storage and sorting
> >  - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
> >  - scheduler interface change
> > 
> >  Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance figures. This
> >  includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we can
> repeat
> > >>> them
> >  when we want to.
> > 
> >  Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release to be
> > >>> ready
> >  for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021. This
> > >> will
> >  give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the
> release.
> > A
> >  release for us is still a multistep project:
> >  - fork and prepare the release
> >  - vote in the project
> >  - vote in the incubator PMC
> >  Looking back at the last release cycles that means we should have a
> > >> build
> >  ready for voting by 22 November on the dev list. Which would mean
> that
> > >> we
> >  fork the release at the latest in the second week of November.
> > 
> >  Please let me know if the timeline is too ambitious or not ambitious
> >  enough.
> > 
> >  Wilfred
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@yunikorn.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@yunikorn.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Weiwei Yang]

Hi Craig

I think officially supporting 3 major K8s versions should be enough, but we
need to update to 1.19, 1.20, and 1.21.
1.18 is EoL per https://endoflife.date/kubernetes . If we continue our
release cadence, most likely we can move 1 major release at a time and that
aligns with the K8s releases.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Craig Condit  wrote:

> Looking forward to 1.0 release as well, and thanks Chaoran for
> volunteering to manage the release.
>
> Should we also update our supported version matrix to include 1.18, 1.19,
> 1.20, and 1.21? Updating the e2e test matrix should be a one-line change,
> and as part of the rebuild against 1.20, I verified that 1.21 is functional.
>
> Craig
>
> > On Oct 22, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> >
> > Sounds great, thank you Chaoran!
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chaoran Yu 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey guys,
> >>
> >> I volunteer to be the release manager this time, if nobody else has
> >> volunteered already.
> >>
> >> The proposed timeline sounds right to be. It will allow for ample time
> for
> >> stabilization and verification.
> >>
> >> Chaoran
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Wilfred
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. Sounds good to me.
> >>> Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache way
> >>> encourages more people to get involved in the release process.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg <
> >>> wilfr...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi,
> 
>  We have been making big steps since our last release. Some major
> >> changes
>  have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
>  - rest API updates
>  - new node storage and sorting
>  - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
>  - scheduler interface change
> 
>  Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance figures. This
>  includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we can repeat
> >>> them
>  when we want to.
> 
>  Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release to be
> >>> ready
>  for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021. This
> >> will
>  give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the release.
> A
>  release for us is still a multistep project:
>  - fork and prepare the release
>  - vote in the project
>  - vote in the incubator PMC
>  Looking back at the last release cycles that means we should have a
> >> build
>  ready for voting by 22 November on the dev list. Which would mean that
> >> we
>  fork the release at the latest in the second week of November.
> 
>  Please let me know if the timeline is too ambitious or not ambitious
>  enough.
> 
>  Wilfred
> 
> >>>
> >>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@yunikorn.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@yunikorn.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Craig Condit]

Looking forward to 1.0 release as well, and thanks Chaoran for volunteering to 
manage the release.

Should we also update our supported version matrix to include 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 
and 1.21? Updating the e2e test matrix should be a one-line change, and as part 
of the rebuild against 1.20, I verified that 1.21 is functional.

Craig

> On Oct 22, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Weiwei Yang  wrote:
> 
> Sounds great, thank you Chaoran!
> 
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chaoran Yu  wrote:
> 
>> Hey guys,
>> 
>> I volunteer to be the release manager this time, if nobody else has
>> volunteered already.
>> 
>> The proposed timeline sounds right to be. It will allow for ample time for
>> stabilization and verification.
>> 
>> Chaoran
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM Weiwei Yang  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Wilfred
>>> 
>>> Thanks. Sounds good to me.
>>> Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache way
>>> encourages more people to get involved in the release process.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg <
>>> wilfr...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi,
 
 We have been making big steps since our last release. Some major
>> changes
 have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
 - rest API updates
 - new node storage and sorting
 - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
 - scheduler interface change
 
 Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance figures. This
 includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we can repeat
>>> them
 when we want to.
 
 Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release to be
>>> ready
 for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021. This
>> will
 give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the release. A
 release for us is still a multistep project:
 - fork and prepare the release
 - vote in the project
 - vote in the incubator PMC
 Looking back at the last release cycles that means we should have a
>> build
 ready for voting by 22 November on the dev list. Which would mean that
>> we
 fork the release at the latest in the second week of November.
 
 Please let me know if the timeline is too ambitious or not ambitious
 enough.
 
 Wilfred
 
>>> 
>> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@yunikorn.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@yunikorn.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Weiwei Yang]

Sounds great, thank you Chaoran!

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chaoran Yu  wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> I volunteer to be the release manager this time, if nobody else has
> volunteered already.
>
> The proposed timeline sounds right to be. It will allow for ample time for
> stabilization and verification.
>
> Chaoran
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:48 PM Weiwei Yang  wrote:
>
> > Hi Wilfred
> >
> > Thanks. Sounds good to me.
> > Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache way
> > encourages more people to get involved in the release process.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg <
> > wilfr...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We have been making big steps since our last release. Some major
> changes
> > > have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
> > > - rest API updates
> > > - new node storage and sorting
> > > - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
> > > - scheduler interface change
> > >
> > > Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance figures. This
> > > includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we can repeat
> > them
> > > when we want to.
> > >
> > > Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release to be
> > ready
> > > for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021. This
> will
> > > give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the release. A
> > > release for us is still a multistep project:
> > > - fork and prepare the release
> > > - vote in the project
> > > - vote in the incubator PMC
> > > Looking back at the last release cycles that means we should have a
> build
> > > ready for voting by 22 November on the dev list. Which would mean that
> we
> > > fork the release at the latest in the second week of November.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if the timeline is too ambitious or not ambitious
> > > enough.
> > >
> > > Wilfred
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Weiwei Yang]

Hi Wilfred

Thanks. Sounds good to me.
Does anyone want to be the release manager for 1.0? The apache way
encourages more people to get involved in the release process.

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:45 PM Wilfred Spiegelenburg 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We have been making big steps since our last release. Some major changes
> have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
> - rest API updates
> - new node storage and sorting
> - upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
> - scheduler interface change
>
> Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance figures. This
> includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we can repeat them
> when we want to.
>
> Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release to be ready
> for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021. This will
> give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the release. A
> release for us is still a multistep project:
> - fork and prepare the release
> - vote in the project
> - vote in the incubator PMC
> Looking back at the last release cycles that means we should have a build
> ready for voting by 22 November on the dev list. Which would mean that we
> fork the release at the latest in the second week of November.
>
> Please let me know if the timeline is too ambitious or not ambitious
> enough.
>
> Wilfred
>

[DISCUSS] release v1.0.0 planning

[Wilfred Spiegelenburg]

Hi,

We have been making big steps since our last release. Some major changes
have gone in and some are almost ready. The changes include:
- rest API updates
- new node storage and sorting
- upgrade to a later K8s version as a build dependency
- scheduler interface change

Work is ongoing on generating a new set of performance figures. This
includes documenting how to run our performance tests so we can repeat them
when we want to.

Based on all this work I would like to propose a 1.0.0 release to be ready
for a vote by the incubator PMC by the start of December 2021. This will
give us some time to get the last fixes in and stabilise the release. A
release for us is still a multistep project:
- fork and prepare the release
- vote in the project
- vote in the incubator PMC
Looking back at the last release cycles that means we should have a build
ready for voting by 22 November on the dev list. Which would mean that we
fork the release at the latest in the second week of November.

Please let me know if the timeline is too ambitious or not ambitious enough.

Wilfred