There were no new updates, I will start a vote based on the latest proposal.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > +1 to starting with 2.7 branch and supporting it for 6 months. I think we > should start the support window of 6 months from the day we agree to do > this. That way users will at least get the benefit for 6 months after > learning about LTS status. > > It seems like there is a consensus. Should we hold a vote on this? > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > wrote: > >> Yes, cutting more patch releases is the goal of the LTS release. We >> have not yet determined what the threshold is for backporting bugfixes >> (which, in part, depends on how much work that is) nor how often we'd >> do a release. >> > > How about we start tagging issues with a fix version 2.7.1 and a do a case > by case decision. Over time we could write down common patterns that we > used for deciding what to backport. > > >> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:42 PM Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > +1 for using an existing release. >> > >> > Regarding set of issues, I think so far the policy has been that we cut >> patch releases for major issues such as security fixes or major breakages >> of functionality (we only did one patch release so far IIRC). Are we going >> to change this policy ? For example, are we going to cut regular patch >> releases for supported branch (release-2.7.0) within the supported period >> that fixes known issues ? My preference is to keep existing policy on this >> regard. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Cham >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 5:12 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Indeed, that's a vary good signal. >> >> >> >> I propose we start with the 2.7 branch (which has been out in the wild >> >> for a bit and seems pretty stable), supported for 6 months (from >> >> now?). We should gather a list of issues, if any, that merit >> >> backporting. >> > >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > The result shows that there is a demand for an LTS release. >> >> > >> >> > +1 for using an existing release. How about six months for the >> initial >> >> > LTS release? I think it shouldn't be too long for the first one to >> give >> >> > us a chance to make changes to the model. >> >> > >> >> > -Max >> >> > >> >> > On 02.11.18 17:26, Ahmet Altay wrote: >> >> > > Twitter vote concluded with 52 votes with the following results: >> >> > > - 52% Stable LTS releases >> >> > > - 46% Upgrade to latest release >> >> > > - 2% Keep using older releases >> >> > > >> >> > > This reads like another supporting evidence for making LTS >> releases. In >> >> > > the light of this, what do you all think about Kenn's proposal of >> making >> >> > > existing branch an LTS branch? >> >> > > >> >> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com >> >> > > <mailto:al...@google.com>> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Kenneth Knowles < >> k...@apache.org >> >> > > <mailto:k...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > Yes, user@ cannot reach new users, really. Twitter might, >> if we >> >> > > have enough of adjacent followers to get it in front of the >> >> > > right people. On the other hand, I find testimonials from >> >> > > experience convincing in this case. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > I agree I am not sure how much additional input we will get >> from a >> >> > > twitter poll. Started one anyway >> >> > > (https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096 >> >> > > <https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096>). >> I used >> >> > > Thomas's version as the basis and had to shorten it to fit the >> >> > > character limits. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > Kenn >> >> > > >> >> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM Ahmet Altay < >> al...@google.com >> >> > > <mailto:al...@google.com>> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Thomas Weise >> >> > > <t...@apache.org <mailto:t...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:42 PM Ahmet Altay >> >> > > <al...@google.com <mailto:al...@google.com>> >> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > We attempted to collect feedback on the mailing >> >> > > lists but did not get much input. From my >> experience >> >> > > (mostly based on dataflow) there is a sizeable >> group >> >> > > of users who are less interested in new >> features and >> >> > > want a version that is stable, that does not >> have >> >> > > security issues, major data integrity issues >> etc. In >> >> > > Beam's existing release model that corresponds >> to >> >> > > the latest release. >> >> > > >> >> > > It would help a lot if we can hear the >> perspectives >> >> > > of other users who are not present here >> through the >> >> > > developers who work with them. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > Perhaps user@ and Twitter are good ways to reach >> >> > > relevant audience. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > We tried user@ before did not get any feedback [1]. >> Polling >> >> > > on twitter sounds like a good idea. Unless there is an >> >> > > objection, I can start a poll with Thomas's proposed >> text as >> >> > > is on Beam's twitter account. >> >> > > >> >> > > [1] >> >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thre >> ad.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c >> 7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E >> >> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thr >> ead.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56 >> c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > A poll could look like this: >> >> > > >> >> > > The Beam community is considering LTS (Long Term >> >> > > Support) for selected releases. LTS releases would >> only >> >> > > contain critical bug fixes (security, data >> integrity >> >> > > etc.) and offer an alternative to upgrading to >> latest >> >> > > Beam release with new features. Please indicate >> your >> >> > > preference for Beam upgrades: >> >> > > >> >> > > 1) Always upgrading to the latest release because >> I need >> >> > > latest features along with bug fixes >> >> > > 2) Interested to switch to LTS releases to obtain >> >> > > critical fixes >> >> > > 3) Not upgrading (using older release for other >> reasons) >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >
