Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Wah I see it now, no 404 for me either...nothing to see here, carry on :P On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > Something strange is going on. We can see it in the dropdown list in the > UI, but if you click on that tag you get a 404. > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Reuven La

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Something strange is going on. We can see it in the dropdown list in the UI, but if you click on that tag you get a 404. On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > I created a v2.2 tag. Let me look to see what happened. > > On Dec 13, 2017 2:31 PM, "Steve Niemitz" wrote: > >> Sorry fo

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

I created a v2.2 tag. Let me look to see what happened. On Dec 13, 2017 2:31 PM, "Steve Niemitz" wrote: > Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but I was trying to build 2.2.0 from > source today and noticed there was no v2.2.0 tag (only v2.2.0-RC4). I > assume that's not intentional? > > On Fri,

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but I was trying to build 2.2.0 from source today and noticed there was no v2.2.0 tag (only v2.2.0-RC4). I assume that's not intentional? On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Thanks Eugene for opening the poll (sorry if I didn't before I was

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Thanks Eugene for opening the poll (sorry if I didn't before I was quite busy in the last two days but expected to do it today). On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Eugene Kirpichov > wrote: >> >> I've sent the poll >> https://lists.apache.org/

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > I've sent the poll https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > 5bc2e184a24de9dbc8184ffd2720d1894010497d47d956b395e037df@% > 3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E > Will figure out how to tweet from @ApacheBeam, and sent the Twitter poll > as well (or ask

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

I've sent the poll https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bc2e184a24de9dbc8184ffd2720d1894010497d47d956b395e037df@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E Will figure out how to tweet from @ApacheBeam, and sent the Twitter poll as well (or ask someone to). On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:47 PM Lukasz Cwik wrote: > +

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

+1 on moving forward with the plan suggested by kirpichov@ On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > +1 to moving forward with this plan. > > (FWIW, this seems *less* backwards incompatible than, say, moving from > Spark 1 to Spark 2, which was decided much quicker. I suppose the

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

+1 to moving forward with this plan. (FWIW, this seems *less* backwards incompatible than, say, moving from Spark 1 to Spark 2, which was decided much quicker. I suppose the Spark change has a lower bound on the number of users it could impact though.) On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Eugene Kirpi

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Okay, then let's go forward. Seems that we should: - Open a new poll on user@, in light of 2.2 having been released - Open a twitter poll - Tweet that there's also a poll going on on user@ - Runner authors will reach out to respective runner user communities - 2 weeks later we gather results and de

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

+1 For Eugene’s arguments waiting for Beam 3.0 seems still far away, and starting to improve Beam to offer a Java 8 friendly experience seems like an excellent idea. I understand the backwards compatibility argument. We should do the poll in twitter + try to reach more users for comments. If you c

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

+1, and sorry again, I thought we got an consensus. Regards JB On 12/05/2017 07:10 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: +1 to the poll and also to Reuven's point. Those without a support contract would have been using JDK 7 without security updates for years. IMO it seems harmful, as a netizen, to enco

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

+1 to the poll and also to Reuven's point. Those without a support contract would have been using JDK 7 without security updates for years. IMO it seems harmful, as a netizen, to encourage its use/existence. If there's no noise from the prior thread, then I would assume no one on user@ has any ob

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Thank you Reuven! I tweeted the release announcement on Beam's account. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > Technically it's a backwards-incompatible change, however if we are > convinced the risk is low we could do it. > > As mentioned on the original thread, it's not clear that

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Technically it's a backwards-incompatible change, however if we are convinced the risk is low we could do it. As mentioned on the original thread, it's not clear that all Beam users read user@ - e.g. most Dataflow users definitely do not. I think we need to separately reach out to users of each ru

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

On the original thread https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E , Robert and Ismaël were in favor of no major version change [Ismaël said:* Also I am afraid that if we wait* *until we have enough changes to switch Beam

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Good idea ! Definitely +1 Regards JB On 12/05/2017 05:25 AM, Reuven Lax wrote: We should bring this up on the Beam 3.0 thread. Since it's technically a backwards-incompatible change, it might make a good item for Beam 3.0. Reuven On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

We should bring this up on the Beam 3.0 thread. Since it's technically a backwards-incompatible change, it might make a good item for Beam 3.0. Reuven On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > My apologizes, I thought we had a consensus already. > > Regards > JB > > On 12/04

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

My apologizes, I thought we had a consensus already. Regards JB On 12/04/2017 11:22 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: Thanks JB for sending the detailed notes about new stuff in 2.2.0! A lot of exciting things indeed. Regarding Java 8: I thought our consensus was to have the release notes say that

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

I also believe we were still in the investigatory phase for dropping support for Java 7. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > Thanks JB for sending the detailed notes about new stuff in 2.2.0! A lot > of exciting things indeed. > > Regarding Java 8: I thought our consensus w

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Thanks JB for sending the detailed notes about new stuff in 2.2.0! A lot of exciting things indeed. Regarding Java 8: I thought our consensus was to have the release notes say that we're *considering* going Java8-only, and use that to get more opinions from the user community - but I can't find th

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

I'm super excited about this release! Great work everyone involved! On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Just an important note that we forgot to mention. > > !! The 2.2.0 release will be the last one supporting Spark 1.x and Java 7 > !! > > Starting from Beam 2.3.0, th

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Just an important note that we forgot to mention. !! The 2.2.0 release will be the last one supporting Spark 1.x and Java 7 !! Starting from Beam 2.3.0, the Spark runner will work only with Spark 2.x and we will focus only Java 8. Regards JB On 12/04/2017 10:15 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Thanks Reuven ! I would like to emphasize on some highlights in 2.2.0 release: - New IOs have been introduced: * TikaIO leveraging Apache Tika, allowing the deal with a lot of different data formats * RedisIO to read and write key/value pairs from a Redis server. This IO will be soon extende

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

As this is my work gmail, I don't think I'm able to alter the SMTP servers used to send email. Reuven On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Thomas Weise wrote: > You can send via mail-relay.apache.org: > > https://reference.apache.org/committer/email# > sendingemailfromyourapacheorgemailaddress > >

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

You can send via mail-relay.apache.org: https://reference.apache.org/committer/email#sendingemailfromyourapacheorgemailaddress On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > I've only ever had my @apache.org address set up as a forwarding address. > How do I go about sending from it? > >

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

I've only ever had my @apache.org address set up as a forwarding address. How do I go about sending from it? annou...@apache.org bounces with the same error. On Dec 2, 2017 7:48 PM, "Thomas Weise" wrote: > That's probably because the email wasn't sent from your @apache.org > address. Shouldn't

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

That's probably because the email wasn't sent from your @apache.org address. Shouldn't it also go to annou...@apache.org ? On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > My attempt to send this to the user list bounced. > > s > > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > >> The A

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

Woohoo!! When you're able to send to user@ - note that we should also link to the thread with voting on removal of Java7 support https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 2:41 PM Reuven Lax wro

Re: Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

My attempt to send this to the user list bounced. s On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > The Apache Beam community is pleased to announce the availability of the > 2.2.0 release. > > This release adds support for generic file sources and sinks (beyond > TextIO and AvroIO) using F

Apache Beam, version 2.2.0

The Apache Beam community is pleased to announce the availability of the 2.2.0 release. This release adds support for generic file sources and sinks (beyond TextIO and AvroIO) using FileIO, including support for dynamic filenames using readAll; this allows streaming pipelines to now read from file