+1 to both of these points. SGA should have probably already been filed, and excising this from releases should be easy, but I added a line item to the validation checklist template to make sure we don't forget.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:13 AM Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote: > I support leaving things as they stand now -- thanks for finding a good > way out of an uncomfortable situation. > > That said, two things need to happen: > (1) SGA needs to be filed asap, per Board feedback in the last report, and > (2) releases cannot contain any code from the Go SDK before formally voted > on the new component and accepted. This includes source releases that are > created through "assembly", so manual exclusion in the configuration is > likely needed. > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >
