I tried to create a shared kanban board but I failed. I think I am lacking some permission to create a shared filter. Could someone help with creating this?
The filter I planned to use was "project = BEAM AND (parent = BEAM-2784 OR parent = BEAM-1251) ORDER BY Rank ASC" Ahmet On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Robbe Sneyders <robbe.sneyd...@ml6.eu> wrote: > Hi all, > > I don't seem to have the permissions to create a Kanban board or even > assign tasks to myself. Who could help me with this? > > I've updated the coders package pull request [1] and added the applied > strategy to the proposal document [2]. > It would be great to get some feedback on this, so we can start moving > forward with other subpackages. > > Kind regards, > Robbe > > [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4990 > [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDG0MWVlDKDPu_ > IW9gtMvxi2S9I0GB0VDTkPhjXT0nE/edit?usp=sharing > > On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 at 21:07 Robbe Sneyders <robbe.sneyd...@ml6.eu> wrote: > >> Hello Robert, >> >> I think a Kanban board on Jira as proposed by Ahmet can be helpful for >> this. I'll look into setting one up tomorrow. >> >> In the meantime, you can find the first pull request with the updated >> coders package here: >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4990 >> >> Kind regards, >> Robbe >> >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 at 18:01 Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:39 AM Robbe Sneyders <robbe.sneyd...@ml6.eu> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Ahmet and Robert, >>>> >>>> I think we can work on different subpackages in parallel, but it's >>>> important to apply the same strategy everywhere. I'm currently working on >>>> applying step 1 (was mostly done already) and 2 of the proposal to the >>>> coders subpackage to create a first pull request. We can then discuss the >>>> applied strategy in detail before merging and applying it to the other >>>> subpackages. >>>> >>> >>> Sounds good. Again, could you document (in a more permanent/easy to look >>> up state than email) when packages are started/done? >>> >>> >>>> This strategy also includes the choice of automated tools. I'm focusing >>>> on writing python 3 code with python 2 compatibility, which means depending >>>> on the future package instead of the six package (which is already used in >>>> some places in the current code base). I have already noticed that this >>>> indeed requires a lot of manual work after running the automated script. >>>> The future package supports python 3.3+ compatibility, so I don't think >>>> there is a higher cost supporting 3.4 compared to 3.5+. >>>> >>> >>> Sure. It may incur a higher maintenance burden long-term though. >>> (Basically, if we go out the door with 3.4 it's a promise to support it for >>> some time to come.) >>> >>> >>>> I have already added a tox environment to run pylint2 with the --py3k >>>> argument per updated subpackage, which should help avoid regression between >>>> step 2 and step 3 of the proposal. This update will be pushed with the >>>> first pull request. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Robbe >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 at 02:22 Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you, Robbie, for your offer to help with contribution here. I >>>>> read over your doc and the one thing I'd like to add is that this work is >>>>> very parallelizable, but if we have enough people looking at it we'll want >>>>> some way to coordinate so as to not overlap work (or just waste time >>>>> discovering what's been done). Tracking individual JIRAs and PRs gets >>>>> unwieldy, perhaps a spreadsheet with modules/packages on one axis and the >>>>> various automated/manual conversions along the other would be helpful? >>>>> >>>>> A note on automated tools, they're sometimes overly conservative, so >>>>> we should be sure to review the changes manually. (A typical example of >>>>> this is unnecessarily importing six.moves.xrange when there was no big >>>>> reason to use xrange over range in Python 2, or conversely using >>>>> list(range(...) in Python 3.) >>>>> >>>>> Also, +1 to targetting 3.4+ and upgrading tox to prevent regressions. >>>>> If there's a cost to supporting 3.4 as opposed to requiring 3.5+ we should >>>>> identify it and decide that before widespread announcement. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:27 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:27 AM Robbe Sneyders < >>>>>>> robbe.sneyd...@ml6.eu> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Anand, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It should be no problem to run everything on DataflowRunner as well. >>>>>>>> Are there any performance tests in place to check for performance >>>>>>>> regressions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes there is a suite (https://github.com/apache/ >>>>>> beam/blob/master/.test-infra/jenkins/job_beam_ >>>>>> PerformanceTests_Python.groovy). It may not be very comprehensive >>>>>> and seems to be failing for a while. I would not block python 3 work on >>>>>> performance for now. That is the unfortuante state of things. >>>>>> >>>>>> If anybody in the community is interested, this would be a great >>>>>> opportunity to help with benchmarks in general. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some questions were raised in the proposal document which I want to >>>>>>>> add to this conversation: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The first comment was about the targeted python 3 versions. We >>>>>>>> proposed to target 3.6 since it is the latest version available and >>>>>>>> added >>>>>>>> 3.5 because 3.6 adoption seems rather low (hard to find any relevant >>>>>>>> sources on this though). >>>>>>>> If the beam community prefers 3.4, I would propose to target 3.4 >>>>>>>> only during porting and add 3.5 and 3.6 later so we don't slow down the >>>>>>>> porting progress. 3.4 has the advantage of already being installed on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> workers and allows pySpark pipelines to be moved over to beam more >>>>>>>> easily. >>>>>>>> It would be great to get some opinions on this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> My preference is to support 3.4+. I searched a bit on the web to >>>>>> understand the usage statistics for python 3, it seems like python 3.4 >>>>>> has >>>>>> ~20% usage and python 3.4+ has 99% (https://semaphoreci.com/blog/ >>>>>> 2017/10/18/python-versions-used-in-commercial-projects-in-2017.html). >>>>>> Based on that, I think it makes sense to support it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another comment was made on how to avoid regression during the >>>>>>>> porting progress. >>>>>>>> After applying step 1 and step 2, no python 3 compatibility lint >>>>>>>> warnings should remain, so it would be great if we could enforce this >>>>>>>> check >>>>>>>> for every pull request on an already updated subpackage. >>>>>>>> After applying step 3, all tests should run on python 3, so again >>>>>>>> it would be great if we can enforce these per updated subpackage. >>>>>>>> Any insights on how to best accomplish this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you can look at some of the recent changes to tox.ini in the git >>>>>>> log to see what we’ve done so far around this I suspect you can repeat >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> same pattern. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 updating tox.ini and adding new checks to run_mini_py3lint.sh >>>>>> would help a lot to prevent regressions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Robbe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 at 19:59 Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you Robbe. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I reviewed the document it looks reasonable to me. I will touch on >>>>>>>>> some points that were not mentioned: >>>>>>>>> - Runner exercise different code paths. Doing auto conversions and >>>>>>>>> focusing on DirectRunner is not enough. It is worthwhile to run >>>>>>>>> things on >>>>>>>>> DataflowRunner as well. This can be triggered from Jenkins. It will >>>>>>>>> validate that we are still compatible for python 2. >>>>>>>>> - Similar to above but with an eye on perf regressions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For project tracking on JIRA, please feel free to create any new >>>>>>>>> issues, close stale ones, or take ownership of any open issues. All >>>>>>>>> JIRAs >>>>>>>>> should be assigned to the people actively working on them. If you wan >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> track it in a separate way, you can also propose that. (For example a >>>>>>>>> kanban board is used for portability effort which is fully supported >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> JIRA.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I will also call out to a few other people in addition to Holden >>>>>>>>> who helped out or showed interest in helping with Python 3. @cclaus, >>>>>>>>> @luke-zhu, @udim, @robertwb, @charlesccychen, @tvalentyn. You can >>>>>>>>> include these people (and myself) for reviews and other questions >>>>>>>>> that you >>>>>>>>> have. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Welcome again, and looking forward to your contributions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>> Ahmet >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Robbe Sneyders < >>>>>>>>> robbe.sneyd...@ml6.eu> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the next month(s), me and my colleague Matthias will commit a >>>>>>>>>> lot of time and effort to python 3 support for beam and we would >>>>>>>>>> like to >>>>>>>>>> discuss the best way to go forward with this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We have drawn up a document [1] with a high level outline of the >>>>>>>>>> proposed approach and would like to get your feedback on this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The main Jira issue [2] for python 3 support has been mostly >>>>>>>>>> inactive for the past year. Other smaller issues have been opened, >>>>>>>>>> but it's >>>>>>>>>> hard to track the general progress. It would be great if anyone >>>>>>>>>> could offer >>>>>>>>>> some insights on how to best handle this project on Jira. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @Holden Karau, you seem to have already put in a lot of effort to >>>>>>>>>> add python 3 support, so it would be great to get your insights and >>>>>>>>>> find a >>>>>>>>>> way to merge our efforts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>>>> Robbe >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDG0MWVlDKDPu_ >>>>>>>>>> IW9gtMvxi2S9I0GB0VDTkPhjXT0nE/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1251 >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [image: https://ml6.eu] <https://ml6.eu/> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * Robbe Sneyders* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ML6 Gent >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.be/maps/place/ML6/@51.037408,3.7044893,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c37161feeca14b:0xb8f72585fdd21c90!8m2!3d51.037408!4d3.706678?hl=nl> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> M: +32 474 71 31 08 <+32%20474%2071%2031%2008> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [image: https://ml6.eu] <https://ml6.eu/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Robbe Sneyders* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ML6 Gent >>>>>>>> <https://www.google.be/maps/place/ML6/@51.037408,3.7044893,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c37161feeca14b:0xb8f72585fdd21c90!8m2!3d51.037408!4d3.706678?hl=nl> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> M: +32 474 71 31 08 <+32%20474%2071%2031%2008> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> >>>> [image: https://ml6.eu] <https://ml6.eu/> >>>> >>>> * Robbe Sneyders* >>>> >>>> ML6 Gent >>>> <https://www.google.be/maps/place/ML6/@51.037408,3.7044893,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c37161feeca14b:0xb8f72585fdd21c90!8m2!3d51.037408!4d3.706678?hl=nl> >>>> >>>> M: +32 474 71 31 08 <+32%20474%2071%2031%2008> >>>> >>> -- >> >> [image: https://ml6.eu] <https://ml6.eu/> >> >> * Robbe Sneyders* >> >> ML6 Gent >> <https://www.google.be/maps/place/ML6/@51.037408,3.7044893,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c37161feeca14b:0xb8f72585fdd21c90!8m2!3d51.037408!4d3.706678?hl=nl> >> >> M: +32 474 71 31 08 <+32%20474%2071%2031%2008> >> > -- > > [image: https://ml6.eu] <https://ml6.eu/> > > * Robbe Sneyders* > > ML6 Gent > <https://www.google.be/maps/place/ML6/@51.037408,3.7044893,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c37161feeca14b:0xb8f72585fdd21c90!8m2!3d51.037408!4d3.706678?hl=nl> > > M: +32 474 71 31 08 >
