About BEAM-3409, I did a review yesterday and it looks good to me. We are waiting for Thomas' feedback.
Regards JB Le 1 mars 2018 à 09:38, à 09:38, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> a écrit: >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 <rober...@google.com> >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 ><j...@nanthrax.net> >> 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 ><j...@nanthrax.net >>> > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> 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 < >>> j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net> >>> > > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>> 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 < >>> j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net> >>> > > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> >>> > > > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net> ><mailto: >>> j...@nanthrax.net >>> > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>>> 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 >>> > > > jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> >>> <mailto:jbono...@apache.org >>> > <mailto:jbono...@apache.org>> >>> > > <mailto:jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> >>> > <mailto:jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org>>> >>> > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> > > jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> >>> > <mailto:jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org>> >>> > > http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> > > Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> > > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> > jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> >>> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Gus Katsiapis | Software Engineer | katsia...@google.com >>> > <mailto:katsia...@google.com> | 650-918-7487 >>> >>> -- >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> jbono...@apache.org >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> >>
