Re-reading the old thread, I see these desirata:

 - "enough IO to write end-to-end examples such as WordCount and
demonstrate what IOs would look like"
 - "accounting and tracking the fact that each element has an associated
window and timestamp"
 - "test suites and test utilities"

Browsing the code, it looks like these each exist to some level of
completion.

Kenn


On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote:

> I was actually thinking along the same lines: what was yet lacking to
> "officially" merge the Go branch in? The thread we started on this seems to
> have fizzled out over the holidays, but windowing support is the only
> must-have missing technical feature in my book (assuming documentation and
> testing are, or are brought up to snuff).
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:35 PM Henning Rohde <hero...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> One thought: the Go SDK is actually not that far away from satisfying the
>> guidelines for merging to master anyway (as discussed here [1]). If we
>> decide to simply leave the code in master -- which seems to be what this
>> thread is leaning towards -- I'll gladly sign up to do the remaining
>> aspects (I believe it's only windowing, validation tests and documentation)
>> reasonably quickly to get to an official vote for accepting it and in turn
>> get master into a sound state. It would seem like the path of least hassle.
>> Of course, I'm happy to go with whatever the community is comfortable with
>> -- just trying to make lemonade out of the merge lemon.
>>
>> Henning
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fd4201980d7a6e67248b1f183ee06b0ff1305bd46f1291495679fc0a@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think a very easy fix to unblock everyone is
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4809. It just updates one line of a
>>> pom.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what value there is in preserving this accidental merge in
>>>> history, but all options proposed seem fine to me. We should resolve this
>>>> (or at least unblock other dev work) quickly though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:16 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My own vote is for leaving the history immutable, which is the case
>>>>> for the full rollback or leaving it there disabled.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:01 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for (1), assuming it is straightforward to exclude from the build
>>>>>> and eventually will end up in master anyways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would opt for (2), but I'm not sure who has permissions to do
>>>>>>> that. It should be easy to re-merge the couple of things that have gone 
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> since then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:43 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may have noticed that our tests are red. A pull request that
>>>>>>>> was meant for the Go SDK branch accidentally got merged onto the master
>>>>>>>> branch. Things have been merged to master since then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've opened a revert at https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4808
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The next time there is a master to go-sdk merge it will need to be
>>>>>>>> re-reverted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two other options are (1) leave it there and disable it in whatever
>>>>>>>> way and (2) rebase dropping the commit and force push master (breaks 
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> checkouts that are past it).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>

Reply via email to