Strong +1 on transitioning all development to the ASF repo.

I think a straight move of the hacking branch may still be problematic
though, because it sets the path to continue hacking vs. working towards a
viable milestone that other contributors can base their work off. I would
prefer a state that separates serious development from hacks in a way where
the code does not overlap.

Based on Ben's assessment, if most of the hacks are currently are in the
SDK area, then perhaps we can transition everything related to job server
and translation to master so that it is possible to build and work on the
runner there and then only use  the hacked SDKs branch for demos?

And maybe discuss an MVP milestone and put together a JIRA view that shows
what remains to be done to get there?


On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Holden Karau <> wrote:

> So I would be strongly in favour of adding it as a branch on the Apache
> repo. This way other folks are more likely to be able to help with the
> splitting up and merging process and also while Flink forward is behind us
> getting in the practice of doing feature branches on the ASF repo for
> collaboration instead of personal github accounts seems like a worthy goal.
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:21 PM Robert Bradshaw <>
> wrote:
>> I suppose with the hackathon and flink forward behind us, I'm thinking we
>> should start shifting gears more getting what we have into master in
>> production state and less on continuing working on a hacking branch. If we
>> think it'll fairly quick there's no big need to create an official branch,
>> and if it's going to be long lived perhaps we should rethink our process.
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:44 PM Aljoscha Krettek <>
>> wrote:
>> > I would also be in favour of adding a branch to our main repo. A random
>> branch on some personal GitHub account can seem a bit sketchy and adding a
>> branch to our repo could make it more visible for people that are
>> interested.
>> > On 12. Apr 2018, at 15:29, Ben Sidhom <> wrote:
>> > I would say that most of it is not suitable for direct merging. There
>> are
>> several reasons for this:
>> > Most changes are built on upstream PRs that are either not submitted or
>> have been rebased before submission.
>> > There are some very hacky changes in the Python and Java SDKs to get
>> portable pipelines working. For example, hard coding certain options
>> and/or
>> baking dependencies into the SDK harness images. These need to be actually
>> implemented correctly in their respective SDKs.
>> > Much of the code does not have proper tests and fails simple lint tests.
>> > As a concrete example, I tried cherry-picking the changes from
>> into master. This is a relatively
>> simple change, but there were so many merge conflicts that in the end it
>> was easier to just reimplement the changes atop master. More importantly,
>> most changes will require refactoring before actually going in.
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Robert Bradshaw <>
>> wrote:
>> >> How much of this is not suitable to merging into master directly (not
>> as
>> >> is, but as separate PRs)?
>> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM Ben Sidhom <> wrote:
>> >> > Hey all,
>> >> > I've been working on a proof-of-concept portable Flink runner with
>> some
>> >> other Beam contributors. We would like to have a point of reference for
>> the
>> >> rest of the Beam community as we integrate this work into master. It
>> >> currently lives under
>> >>
>> >> > I would suggest pulling this into the main ASF repo under an
>> >> appropriately-named branch (flink-portable-hacking?). The name should
>> >> suggest the intention that this branch is not intended to be pulled
>> into
>> >> master as-is and that it should rather be used as a reference for now.
>> >> > Thoughts?
>> >> > --
>> >> > -Ben
>> > --
>> > -Ben
> --
> Twitter:

Reply via email to