Looking at the burn-down list, we have 5 remaining issues. None of these are blockers, but all look like they're really close (reviewed, review comments were addressed, waiting for a final LGTM). Specifically:
BEAM-3409 (teardown issues): Thomas Groh had some concerns, could you verify they have all been addressed? BEAM-3479 (DoFn classloader regression test): Kenn Knowles had minor comments, looks like they were addressed, could you confirm? BEAM-3735 (Missing gaming release archetypes): Lukasz Cwik had minor comments, looks like they were addressed, could you confirm? BEAM-3611 (KafkaIO.java splitting): Looks like this was resolved. BEAM-3762 (unlimited JCE for Dataflow Worker): LGTM pending (currently running) tests passing. Let's see how many of these we can get in by, say, noon PST tomorrow. On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:26 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > I tend to fall into the "release early, release often" camp in general, > but for this one I'm particularly anxious to get the faster Python direct > runner out in the hands of TFT/TFX users (and in particular have an eye on > https://www.tensorflow.org/dev-summit/ which I think can be a healthy > source of Beam users). > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:01 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Gus, >> >> Thanks for the update, it makes sense. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 03/01/2018 02:59 AM, Konstantinos Katsiapis wrote: >> > Hi Jean-Baptiste, >> > >> > I can speak from the perspective of tf.transform >> > <https://github.com/tensorflow/transform> (TFT) in particular and TFX >> > <https://research.google.com/pubs/pub46484.html> libs in general, in >> case it is >> > useful. >> > >> > TFX distributed computation has 2 "large" dependencies, namely >> TensorFlow and >> > Apache Beam, each on their own release schedule. >> > As such, releasing of new TFX functionality often (but not always) >> depends on >> > (and is blocked by) releases of *both* TensorFlow *and* Apache Beam. >> > >> > Synchronizing releases across such large projects and organizations is >> likely >> > hard, so from our perspective having *frequent* releases of Tensorflow >> or Apache >> > Beam (and better yet both) decreases the time for which we are blocked >> on >> > releasing our features. >> > >> > In light of this, I would vote for more frequent releases in general, >> and for a >> > Beam 2.4 release soon in particular (as TFT 0.6 depends on it). >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Gus >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > By the way, if third party projects based on Beam (Google Dataflow, >> Talend >> > DataStream, and others) need a release (including some features), >> it's better to >> > clearly state this on the mailing list. >> > >> > At Apache Karaf, I have lot of projects based on it (OpenDaylight, >> OpenHAB, >> > Websphere, ...). They just ask for the release schedule and they >> align with >> > these release. As a best effort, I'm always trying to move fast >> when a release >> > is asked. >> > >> > So, if 2.4.0 is required by third party, no problem to "ask for a >> release". >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On 02/28/2018 04:17 AM, Reuven Lax wrote: >> > > It's been six weeks since you proposed beam 2.3.0. so assuming >> the same time >> > > scale for this release, that's 1.5 months between releases. >> Slightly faster than >> > > 2 months, but not by much. >> > > >> > > I do seem to remember that the original goal for beam was monthly >> releases though. >> > > >> > > Reuven >> > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018, 9:12 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Reuven, >> > > >> > > In a previous thread (about Beam project execution), I >> proposed a release every >> > > two months (as a best effort), I will find the e-mail. >> > > >> > > Beam 2.3.0 has been released "officially" on February 16th, >> so two week ago >> > > roughly. I would have expected 2.4.0 not before end of March. >> > > >> > > If we have issue we want to fix fast, then 2.3.1 is good. If >> it's a new release >> > > in the pace, it's pretty fast and might "confuse" our users. >> > > >> > > That's why I'm curious ;) >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > JB >> > > >> > > On 02/28/2018 03:50 AM, Reuven Lax wrote: >> > > > Wasn't the original statement monthly releases? We've never >> realistically >> > > > managed that, but Robert's proposed cut will be on a 6-week >> pace. >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018, 8:48 PM 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: >> > > > >> > > > Hi Robert, >> > > > >> > > > I'm just curious: it's pretty fast compared to the >> original plan of a >> > > release >> > > > every two months. What's the reason to cut 2.4.0 now >> instead of end of >> > > March ? >> > > > >> > > > I will do the Jira triage and update today. >> > > > >> > > > Regards >> > > > JB >> > > > >> > > > On 02/27/2018 09:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> > > > > I'm planning on cutting the 2.4.0 release branch soon >> (tomorrow?). I >> > > see 13 >> > > > > open issues on JIRA [1], none of which are labeled as >> blockers. If there >> > > > > are any that cannot be bumped to the next release, >> let me know soon. >> > > > > >> > > > > - Robert >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > [1] >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3749?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.4.0 >> > < >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3749?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.4.0 >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Gus Katsiapis | Software Engineer | [email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]> | 650-918-7487 >> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> [email protected] >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >
