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 <[email protected]> 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 Lax <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I created a v2.2 tag. Let me look to see what happened. >> >> On Dec 13, 2017 2:31 PM, "Steve Niemitz" <[email protected]> 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, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Eugene Kirpichov < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> I've sent the poll >>>> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bc2e184a24de9dbc8184ff >>>> d2720d1894010497d47d956b395e037df@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E >>>> >> Will figure out how to tweet from @ApacheBeam, and sent the Twitter >>>> poll >>>> >> as well (or ask someone to). >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I tweeted the poll. >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:47 PM Lukasz Cwik <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> +1 on moving forward with the plan suggested by kirpichov@ >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Robert Bradshaw < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> 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 Kirpichov < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > 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 decide >>>> >>>> > ? >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:16 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> +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 >>>> >>>> >> consider that it is worth, I can open a second poll at user@. >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> In any case we should try to move forward, even if we have more >>>> than >>>> >>>> >> 5% of users who want to stay on Java 7 we can consider to >>>> maintain >>>> >>>> >> minor releases of a backwards compatible version where we can >>>> >>>> >> backport >>>> >>>> >> only critical fixes e.g. security/data related errors but >>>> nothing >>>> >>>> >> new, >>>> >>>> >> in case some user really needs to have them. Of course this can >>>> be >>>> >>>> >> some extra work (to be discussed). >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>> >>>> >> <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> > +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 >>>> >>>> >> >> encourage >>>> >>>> >> >> its use/existence. >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> If there's no noise from the prior thread, then I would >>>> assume no >>>> >>>> >> >> one >>>> >>>> >> >> on >>>> >>>> >> >> user@ has any objection. Anyone else with customers should >>>> reach >>>> >>>> >> >> out to >>>> >>>> >> >> them. >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> Kenn >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Reuven Lax <[email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >>>> 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 runner through >>>> >>>> >> >> runner-specific >>>> >>>> >> >> channels. >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> Reuven >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Eugene Kirpichov >>>> >>>> >> >> <[email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> On the original thread >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e9 >>>> f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f09b20e >>>> 9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%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 to a new >>>> >>>> >> >> major >>>> >>>> >> >> version the >>>> >>>> >> >> switch to Java 8 will happen too late, probably >>>> after Java >>>> >>>> >> >> 8's >>>> >>>> >> >> end >>>> >>>> >> >> of >>>> >>>> >> >> life. And I am not exaggerating, Java 8 is planned >>>> to EOL >>>> >>>> >> >> next >>>> >>>> >> >> march >>>> >>>> >> >> 2018!/]; JB and now Reuven are in favor of a major >>>> version >>>> >>>> >> >> change; >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> nobody so far argued against switching to Java8 in >>>> >>>> >> >> general. >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> I'm personally in favor of no major version change >>>> (i.e. >>>> >>>> >> >> not >>>> >>>> >> >> waiting >>>> >>>> >> >> until all other large changes for Beam 3.0 converge, >>>> which >>>> >>>> >> >> will >>>> >>>> >> >> likely >>>> >>>> >> >> be many months), because: >>>> >>>> >> >> - Reasons Ismaël cited; plus the reason that most >>>> people >>>> >>>> >> >> are >>>> >>>> >> >> likely >>>> >>>> >> >> already using Java 8. >>>> >>>> >> >> - Going Java8-only earlier will make other Beam 3.0 >>>> APIs >>>> >>>> >> >> better >>>> >>>> >> >> for >>>> >>>> >> >> Java8 users, because we (Beam contributors) will have >>>> >>>> >> >> experience >>>> >>>> >> >> working >>>> >>>> >> >> with them within the SDK in Java8 (e.g. writing >>>> tests with >>>> >>>> >> >> use >>>> >>>> >> >> of >>>> >>>> >> >> lambdas and noticing whether it's clunky, or whether >>>> some >>>> >>>> >> >> other >>>> >>>> >> >> Beam >>>> >>>> >> >> APIs need better Java8 support). >>>> >>>> >> >> - Going Java8 will make it more reasonable to include >>>> >>>> >> >> (mostly >>>> >>>> >> >> or >>>> >>>> >> >> only) >>>> >>>> >> >> Java8 snippets in Beam documentation, which will >>>> obviously >>>> >>>> >> >> look >>>> >>>> >> >> more >>>> >>>> >> >> concise and attractive, addressing one of the common >>>> >>>> >> >> concerns >>>> >>>> >> >> of >>>> >>>> >> >> Beam >>>> >>>> >> >> users that it has a heavyweight API compared to >>>> >>>> >> >> functional-style >>>> >>>> >> >> APIs of >>>> >>>> >> >> Spark etc. >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> I think resolving this via a poll of users would be >>>> >>>> >> >> reasonable. >>>> >>>> >> >> I'd >>>> >>>> >> >> suggest e.g. the following phrasing: >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> Apache Beam is considering dropping support for Java >>>> 7, >>>> >>>> >> >> and >>>> >>>> >> >> supporting >>>> >>>> >> >> only Java 8 and above in a subsequent release. How >>>> would >>>> >>>> >> >> it >>>> >>>> >> >> impact >>>> >>>> >> >> your >>>> >>>> >> >> usage of Beam? >>>> >>>> >> >> - I am already using only Java 8+ for building my >>>> Beam >>>> >>>> >> >> code >>>> >>>> >> >> - I am using Java 7 for building my Beam code, but I >>>> would >>>> >>>> >> >> have >>>> >>>> >> >> no >>>> >>>> >> >> trouble switching to Java 8 >>>> >>>> >> >> - I am using Java 7 for building my Beam code, and >>>> >>>> >> >> dropping >>>> >>>> >> >> Java 7 >>>> >>>> >> >> would >>>> >>>> >> >> be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new >>>> release for >>>> >>>> >> >> me >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> We could tweet this poll on Apache Beam twitter and >>>> >>>> >> >> publish on >>>> >>>> >> >> user@, >>>> >>>> >> >> and, say, if we receive 5% or fewer votes for option >>>> 3 >>>> >>>> >> >> after >>>> >>>> >> >> keeping it >>>> >>>> >> >> open for 2 weeks, then adopt Java 8 without a major >>>> >>>> >> >> version >>>> >>>> >> >> change. >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> WDYT? >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:34 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>> >>>> >> >> <[email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >> >> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto: >>>> [email protected]>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > 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 we're *considering* going >>>> >>>> >> >> Java8-only, >>>> >>>> >> >> and >>>> >>>> >> >> use >>>> >>>> >> >> that to get more >>>> >>>> >> >> > opinions from the user community - >>>> but I >>>> >>>> >> >> can't >>>> >>>> >> >> find >>>> >>>> >> >> the >>>> >>>> >> >> emails that made >>>> >>>> >> >> > me think so. >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > +Ismaël Mejía <mailto: >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto: >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>> - do >>>> >>>> >> >> > you think we should formally conclude >>>> the >>>> >>>> >> >> vote >>>> >>>> >> >> on >>>> >>>> >> >> the >>>> >>>> >> >> thread [VOTE] >>>> >>>> >> >> > [DISCUSSION] Remove support for Java >>>> 7? >>>> >>>> >> >> > Or should we take more steps - e.g. >>>> perhaps >>>> >>>> >> >> tweet a >>>> >>>> >> >> link >>>> >>>> >> >> to that thread >>>> >>>> >> >> > from the Beam twitter account, ask >>>> people >>>> >>>> >> >> to >>>> >>>> >> >> chime >>>> >>>> >> >> in, >>>> >>>> >> >> and wait for say >>>> >>>> >> >> > 2 weeks before declaring a conclusion? >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > Let's also have a process JIRA for >>>> going >>>> >>>> >> >> Java8. >>>> >>>> >> >> I've >>>> >>>> >> >> filed one: >>>> >>>> >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira >>>> /browse/BEAM-3285 >>>> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3285 >>>> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3285 >>>> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3285 >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:58 AM >>>> >>>> >> >> Jean-Baptiste >>>> >>>> >> >> Onofré >>>> >>>> >> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> 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, 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: >>>> >>>> >> >> > > 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 extended to Redis >>>> PubSub. >>>> >>>> >> >> > > * FileIO provides >>>> transforms for >>>> >>>> >> >> working >>>> >>>> >> >> with >>>> >>>> >> >> files (raw). >>>> >>>> >> >> > Especially, it >>>> >>>> >> >> > > provides matching file >>>> patterns and >>>> >>>> >> >> read >>>> >>>> >> >> on >>>> >>>> >> >> patterns. It can be >>>> >>>> >> >> > easily >>>> >>>> >> >> > extended >>>> >>>> >> >> > > for a specific format (like >>>> we do >>>> >>>> >> >> in >>>> >>>> >> >> AvroIO >>>> >>>> >> >> or >>>> >>>> >> >> TextIO now). >>>> >>>> >> >> > > * SolrIO to interact with >>>> Apache >>>> >>>> >> >> Solr >>>> >>>> >> >> (Lucene) >>>> >>>> >> >> > > >>>> >>>> >> >> > > - On the other hand, >>>> improvements >>>> >>>> >> >> have >>>> >>>> >> >> been >>>> >>>> >> >> performed on >>>> >>>> >> >> > existing IOs: >>>> >>>> >> >> > > * We started to introduce >>>> readAll >>>> >>>> >> >> pattern >>>> >>>> >> >> in >>>> >>>> >> >> IOs (AvroIO, >>>> >>>> >> >> > TextIO, JdbcIO, >>>> >>>> >> >> > > ...), allowing to pass >>>> "request" >>>> >>>> >> >> arguments >>>> >>>> >> >> via an >>>> >>>> >> >> input PCollection. >>>> >>>> >> >> > > * ElasticsearchIO has an >>>> improved >>>> >>>> >> >> support >>>> >>>> >> >> of >>>> >>>> >> >> different >>>> >>>> >> >> > Elasticsearch >>>> >>>> >> >> > version >>>> >>>> >> >> > > (including Elasticsearch >>>> 5.x). It >>>> >>>> >> >> also >>>> >>>> >> >> now >>>> >>>> >> >> supports SSL/TLS. >>>> >>>> >> >> > > * HBaseIO is now able to do >>>> >>>> >> >> dynamic >>>> >>>> >> >> work >>>> >>>> >> >> rebalancing >>>> >>>> >> >> > > * KinesisIO uses a more >>>> accurate >>>> >>>> >> >> watermark >>>> >>>> >> >> (based on >>>> >>>> >> >> > approximateArrivalTimestamp) >>>> >>>> >> >> > > * TextIO now supports custom >>>> >>>> >> >> delimiter >>>> >>>> >> >> and like >>>> >>>> >> >> AvroIO, >>>> >>>> >> >> > supports the >>>> >>>> >> >> > readAll >>>> >>>> >> >> > > pattern, >>>> >>>> >> >> > > * Performance improvements >>>> on >>>> >>>> >> >> JdbcIO >>>> >>>> >> >> when >>>> >>>> >> >> it >>>> >>>> >> >> has to read lot >>>> >>>> >> >> > of rows >>>> >>>> >> >> > > * Kafka write supports >>>> >>>> >> >> Exactly-Once >>>> >>>> >> >> pattern >>>> >>>> >> >> (introduce in >>>> >>>> >> >> > Kafka 0.11.x) >>>> >>>> >> >> > > >>>> >>>> >> >> > > - A new DSL has been >>>> introduced: >>>> >>>> >> >> the SQL >>>> >>>> >> >> DSL ! >>>> >>>> >> >> > > >>>> >>>> >> >> > > We are now focus on 2.3.0 >>>> release >>>> >>>> >> >> with >>>> >>>> >> >> new >>>> >>>> >> >> improvements and >>>> >>>> >> >> > features ! >>>> >>>> >> >> > > >>>> >>>> >> >> > > Stay tuned ! >>>> >>>> >> >> > > >>>> >>>> >> >> > > JB on behalf of the Apache >>>> Beam >>>> >>>> >> >> community. >>>> >>>> >> >> > > >>>> >>>> >> >> > > On 12/02/2017 11:40 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 FileIO, >>>> >>>> >> >> including >>>> >>>> >> >> support for >>>> >>>> >> >> dynamic >>>> >>>> >> >> > filenames using >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> readAll; this allows >>>> streaming >>>> >>>> >> >> pipelines >>>> >>>> >> >> to now >>>> >>>> >> >> read from files by >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> continuously monitoring a >>>> >>>> >> >> directory for >>>> >>>> >> >> new >>>> >>>> >> >> filw. Many other >>>> >>>> >> >> > IOs are >>>> >>>> >> >> > improved, >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> notably including >>>> exactly-once >>>> >>>> >> >> support >>>> >>>> >> >> for >>>> >>>> >> >> the >>>> >>>> >> >> Kafka sink. Initial >>>> >>>> >> >> > support for >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> BEAM-SQL is also included in >>>> this >>>> >>>> >> >> release. >>>> >>>> >> >> For a >>>> >>>> >> >> more-complete >>>> >>>> >> >> > list of major >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> changes in the release, >>>> please >>>> >>>> >> >> refer to >>>> >>>> >> >> the >>>> >>>> >> >> release notes [2]. >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> The 2.2.0 release is now the >>>> >>>> >> >> recommended >>>> >>>> >> >> version; we encourage >>>> >>>> >> >> > everyone to >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> upgrade from any earlier >>>> releases. >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> We’d like to invite everyone >>>> to >>>> >>>> >> >> try out >>>> >>>> >> >> Apache >>>> >>>> >> >> Beam today and >>>> >>>> >> >> > consider >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> joining our vibrant >>>> community. We >>>> >>>> >> >> welcome >>>> >>>> >> >> feedback, >>>> >>>> >> >> > contribution and >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> participation through our >>>> mailing >>>> >>>> >> >> lists, >>>> >>>> >> >> issue >>>> >>>> >> >> tracker, pull >>>> >>>> >> >> > requests, and >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> events. >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> - Reuven Lax, on behalf of >>>> the >>>> >>>> >> >> Apache >>>> >>>> >> >> Beam >>>> >>>> >> >> community. >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> [1] >>>> >>>> >> >> https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/ >>>> >>>> >> >> <https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> <https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/ >>>> >>>> >> >> <https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/ >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> [2] >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje >>>> ctId=12319527&version=12341044 >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proj >>>> ectId=12319527&version=12341044> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proj >>>> ectId=12319527&version=12341044 >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proj >>>> ectId=12319527&version=12341044>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > >> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > -- >>>> >>>> >> >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>> >>>> >> >> > [email protected] <mailto: >>>> [email protected]> >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > <mailto:[email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>> >>>> >> >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > -- >>>> >>>> >> >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>> >>>> >> >> > [email protected] <mailto: >>>> [email protected]> >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>> >>>> >> >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >>>> >>>> >> >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>> >>>> >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>> >>>> >> >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> > >>>> >>>> >> > -- >>>> >>>> >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>> >>>> >> > [email protected] >>>> >>>> >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>> >>>> >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >
