Strongly for 2.0.0: * Aljoscha * Cham * Dan * Luke Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0: * Davor * Ismael * Kenn
Strongly for 1.0.0: none. Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0: * Amit * Jesse * JB * Manu * Mingmin * Ted * Thomas W. Unbelievably, the tally is 7 : 7. However, the 2.0 camp tends to feel more strongly, and we have nobody who feels strongly for 1.0. Thus, it seems going with 2.0.0 is the path of least resistance. With that, I'll start building the 2.0.0 RCs, and we'll formally ratify/reject this decision in an RC vote. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 6:30 PM, María García Herrero < mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > The bigger letters aimed to indicate "strongly in favor of" as opposed to > "weakly in favor of." I'm OK with not using a doc, just responding to Ted's > question. > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What's the difference between first and second, third and fourth columns > ? > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, María García Herrero < > > mari...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, Ted. Get your vote in here > > > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ABx3U8ojcfUkFig3hG53lOYl73tdk > > > Wqz5B6eQ40TEgk/edit?usp=sharing> > > > . > > > I have already added all the votes that Davor compiled 3 hours ago and > > the > > > responses afterwards. > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Maybe create a google doc with columns as the camps. > > > > > > > > Each person can put his/her name under the camp in his/her favor. > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm in the relaxed 1.0.0 camp. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > sent from mobile > > > > > On May 4, 2017 12:29 PM, "Mingmin Xu" <mingm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I slightly prefer1.0.0 for the *first* stable release, but fine > > with > > > > > 2.0.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lukasz Cwik > > > <lc...@google.com.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Put me under Strongly for 2.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Kenneth Knowles > > > > > <k...@google.com.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll join Davor's group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Davor Bonaci < > > da...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we have reached a consensus here yet. Let's > > > > > re-examine > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > after some time has passed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand everyone's opinion correctly, this is the > > > > summary: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 2.0.0: > > > > > > > > > * Aljoscha > > > > > > > > > * Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 2.0.0, but fine with 1.0.0: > > > > > > > > > * Davor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strongly for 1.0.0: none. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Slight preference toward 1.0.0, but fine with 2.0.0: > > > > > > > > > * Amit > > > > > > > > > * Jesse > > > > > > > > > * JB > > > > > > > > > * Ted > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any additional opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Davor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Amit Sela < > > > amitsel...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we were to go with a 2.0 release, we would have to be > > very > > > > > clear > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > maturity of different modules; for example python SDK is > > not > > > as > > > > > > > mature > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > Java SDK, some runners support streaming better than > > others, > > > > some > > > > > > run > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > YARN better than others, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My only reservation here is that the Apache community > > usually > > > > > > expects > > > > > > > > > > version 2.0 to be a mature products, so I'm OK as long as > > we > > > do > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > "maturity-analysis" and document properly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:48 AM Ted Yu < > yuzhih...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we end up with version 2.0, more effort (trying out > > more > > > > use > > > > > > > > > scenarios > > > > > > > > > > > e.g.) should go into release process to make sure what > is > > > > > > released > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > indeed stable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Normally people would have higher expectation on 2.0 > > > release > > > > > > > compared > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > 1.0 release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Davor Bonaci < > > > > da...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like we'll end up with two camps on this > > topic. > > > > > This > > > > > > > > issue > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > probably best resolved with a vote, but I'll try to > > > > rephrase > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > > > once to see whether a consensus is possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of asking which option is better, does anyone > > > think > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > > > > > would be negatively impacted if we were to decide on, > > in > > > > your > > > > > > > > > opinion, > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > less desirable variant? If so, can you comment on the > > > > > negative > > > > > > > > impact > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > the less desirable alternative please? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (I understand this may be pushing it a bit, but I > > think a > > > > > > > possible > > > > > > > > > > > > consensus on this is worth it. Personally, I'll stay > > away > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > weighing > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > on this topic.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < > > > > > > > > > aljos...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I prefer 2.0.0 for the first stable release. It > > totally > > > > > makes > > > > > > > > sense > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > people coming from Dataflow 1.x and I can already > > > > envision > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > confusion > > > > > > > > > > > > > between Beam 1.5 and Dataflow 1.5. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 at 07:42 Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > > > > > > j...@nanthrax.net> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Davor, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would > make > > > more > > > > > > > sense. > > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fair number of people starting with Beam (without > > > > knowing > > > > > > > > > > Dataflow). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in > > > > 1.0.0, > > > > > in > > > > > > > > order > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from > > > > Dataflow, > > > > > > > 2.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > > > help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a preference to 1.0.0 anyway, but I would > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > > starting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from 2.0.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 03/01/2017 07:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first stable release is our next major > > > > project-wide > > > > > > > goal; > > > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as > > > "the > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > stable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or > "2017" > > > or > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > else, > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a > > > > > > > > consensus-based > > > > > > > > > > > > decision > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that now is the time to consider the > > > > > appropriate > > > > > > > > > > > designation > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our first stable release, and formally make a > > > > decision > > > > > on > > > > > > > > it. A > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > choices could be "1.0.0" or "2.0.0", perhaps > > there > > > > are > > > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.0.0: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * It logically comes after the current series, > > > 0.x.y. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Most people would expect it, I suppose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * A possible confusion between Dataflow SDKs > and > > > Beam > > > > > > SDKs > > > > > > > > > > carrying > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same number. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.0.0: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Follows the pattern some other projects have > > > taken > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > continuing > > > > > > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version numbering scheme from their previous > > > origin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Better communicates project's roots, and > degree > > > of > > > > > > > > maturity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * May be unexpected to some users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd invite everyone to share their thoughts and > > > > > > preferences > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > names > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important and well correlated with success. > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Davor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > c35067071aec9029d9100ae973c629 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9aa919c31d0de623ac367128e2@%3C > > dev.beam.apache.org > > > %3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jbono...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > Mingmin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
