+1 to remove any mention of LTS related information to not create misinformation on users. Would you be up to do that Austin? or someone else?
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:02 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > > I would want to avoid maintain a Python 2 LTS, even if just for the > fact that the infrastructure might not be there. > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 3:58 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> > wrote: > > > > Yes, we had a suggestion to pick a stable Python 2 release as an LTS. The > > suggestion assumed that LTS will continue to exist. Now, if Python 2 is the > > only reason to have an LTS, we can consider it as long as: > > - we scope the LTS portion to Python SDK only. > > - we have an ownership story for Python 2 LTS, for example volunteers in > > dev or user community who will be willing to maintain that release. > > > > We can bring this up when we drop Python 2 support. We decided to revisit > > that conversation in a couple of months IIRC. > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 3:44 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >> > >> Removing it makes sense. We did not have a good way of measuring the > >> demand for LTS releases. > >> > >> There was a suggestion to mark the last release with python 2 support to > >> be an LTS release, was there a conclusion on that? ( +Valentyn Tymofieiev ) > >> > >> Ahmet > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 2:34 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> There seems to have been lack of demand. I agree we should remove > >>> these statements from our site until we find a reason to re-visit > >>> doing LTS release. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 2:23 PM Austin Bennett > >>> <whatwouldausti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > What's our LTS policy these days? It seems we should remove the > >>> > following from our site (and encourage GCP does the same, below), if > >>> > we're not going to maintain these. I'll update policy page via PR, if > >>> > get the go ahead that it is our desire. Seems we can't suggest > >>> > policies in a policy doc that we don't follow...? > >>> > > >>> > I am not trying to suggest demand for LTS. If others haven't spoken > >>> > up, that also indicates lack of demand. Point of my message is to say, > >>> > we should update our Policies doc, if those aren't what we are > >>> > practicing (and can re-add later if wanting to revive LTS). > >>> > > >>> > https://beam.apache.org/community/policies/ > >>> > > >>> > Apache Beam aims to make 8 releases in a 12 month period. To > >>> > accommodate users with longer upgrade cycles, some of these releases > >>> > will be tagged as long term support (LTS) releases. LTS releases > >>> > receive patches to fix major issues for 12 months, starting from the > >>> > release’s initial release date. There will be at least one new LTS > >>> > release in a 12 month period, and LTS releases are considered > >>> > deprecated after 12 months. The community will mark a release as a LTS > >>> > release based on various factors, such as the number of LTS releases > >>> > currently in flight and whether the accumulated feature set since the > >>> > last LTS provides significant upgrade value. Non-LTS releases do not > >>> > receive patches and are considered deprecated immediately after the > >>> > next following minor release. We encourage you to update early and > >>> > often; do not wait until the deprecation date of the version you are > >>> > using. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Seems a Google Specific Concern, but related to the community: > >>> > https://cloud.google.com/dataflow/docs/support/sdk-version-support-status#apache-beam-sdks-2x > >>> > > >>> > Apache Beam is an open source, community-led project. Google is part of > >>> > the community, but we do not own the project or control the release > >>> > process. We might open bugs or submit patches to the Apache Beam > >>> > codebase on behalf of Dataflow customers, but we cannot create hotfixes > >>> > or official releases of Apache Beam on demand. > >>> > > >>> > However, the Apache Beam community designates specific releases as long > >>> > term support (LTS) releases. LTS releases receive patches to fix major > >>> > issues for a designated period of time. See the Apache Beam policies > >>> > page for more details about release policies. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> I agree with retiring 2.7 as the LTS family. Based on my experience > >>> >> with users 2.7 does not have a particularly high adoption and as > >>> >> pointed out has known critical issues. Declaring another LTS pending > >>> >> demand sounds reasonable but how are we going to gauge this demand? > >>> >> > >>> >> +Yifan Zou +Alan Myrvold on the tooling question as well. Unless we > >>> >> address the tooling problem it seems difficult to feasibly maintain > >>> >> LTS versions over time. > >>> >> > >>> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:45 PM Austin Bennett > >>> >> <whatwouldausti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> To be clear, I was picking on - or reminding us of - the promise: I > >>> >>> don't have a strong personal need/desire (at least currently) for LTS > >>> >>> to exist. Though, worth ensuring we live up to what we keep on the > >>> >>> website. And, without an active LTS, probably something we should > >>> >>> take off the site? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 1:33 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> > >>> >>> wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> +Łukasz Gajowy had at some point thought of setting up jenkins jobs > >>> >>>> without coupling them to the state of the repo during the last Seed > >>> >>>> Job. It may be that that improvement can help test older LTS-type > >>> >>>> releases? > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 1:11 PM Robert Bradshaw > >>> >>>> <rober...@google.com> wrote: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> In many ways the 2.7 LTS was trying to flesh out the process. I > >>> >>>>> think > >>> >>>>> we learned some valuable lessons. It would have been good to push > >>> >>>>> out > >>> >>>>> something (even if it didn't have everything we wanted) but that is > >>> >>>>> unlikely to be worth pursuing now (and 2.7 should probably be > >>> >>>>> retired > >>> >>>>> as LTS and no longer recommended). > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> I agree that it does not seem there is strong demand for an LTS at > >>> >>>>> this point. I would propose that we keep 2.16, etc. as potential > >>> >>>>> candidates, but only declare one as LTS pending demand. The question > >>> >>>>> of how to keep our tooling stable (or backwards/forwards compatible) > >>> >>>>> is a good one, especially as we move to drop Python 2.7 in 2020 > >>> >>>>> (which > >>> >>>>> could itself be a driver for an LTS). > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:27 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> > >>> >>>>> wrote: > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > Yes, I pretty much dropped 2.7.1 release process due to lack of > >>> >>>>> > interest. > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > There are known problems so that I cannot recommend anyone to use > >>> >>>>> > 2.7.0, yet 2.7 it is the current LTS family. So my work on 2.7.1 > >>> >>>>> > was philosophical. I did not like the fact that we had a > >>> >>>>> > designated LTS family with no usable releases. > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > But many backports were proposed to block 2.7.1 and took a very > >>> >>>>> > long time to get contirbutors to implement the backports. I ended > >>> >>>>> > up doing many of them just to move it along. This indicates a > >>> >>>>> > lack of interest to me. The problem is that we cannot really use > >>> >>>>> > a strict cut off date as a way to ensure people do the important > >>> >>>>> > things and skip the unimportant things, because we do know that > >>> >>>>> > the issues are critical. > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > And, yes, the fact that Jenkins jobs are separately evolving but > >>> >>>>> > pretty tightly coupled to the repo contents is a serious problem > >>> >>>>> > that I wish we had fixed. So verification of each PR was manual. > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > Altogether, I still think LTS is valuable to have as a promise to > >>> >>>>> > users that we will backport critical fixes. I would like to keep > >>> >>>>> > that promise and continue to try. Things that are rapidly > >>> >>>>> > changing (which something always will be) just won't have fixes > >>> >>>>> > backported, and that seems OK. > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > Kenn > >>> >>>>> > > >>> >>>>> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Maximilian Michels > >>> >>>>> > <m...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> >>>>> >> > >>> >>>>> >> An LTS only makes sense if we end up patching the LTS, which so > >>> >>>>> >> far we > >>> >>>>> >> have never done. There has been work done in backporting fixes, > >>> >>>>> >> see > >>> >>>>> >> https://github.com/apache/beam/commits/release-2.7.1 but the > >>> >>>>> >> effort was > >>> >>>>> >> never completed. The main reason I believe were complications > >>> >>>>> >> with > >>> >>>>> >> running the evolved release scripts against old Beam versions. > >>> >>>>> >> > >>> >>>>> >> Now that the portability layer keeps maturing, it makes me > >>> >>>>> >> optimistic > >>> >>>>> >> that we might have a maintained LTS in the future. > >>> >>>>> >> > >>> >>>>> >> -Max > >>> >>>>> >> > >>> >>>>> >> On 19.09.19 08:40, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > >>> >>>>> >> > The fact that end users never asked AFAIK in the ML for an LTS > >>> >>>>> >> > and for > >>> >>>>> >> > a subsequent minor release of the existing LTS shows IMO the > >>> >>>>> >> > low > >>> >>>>> >> > interest on having a LTS. > >>> >>>>> >> > > >>> >>>>> >> > We still are heavily iterating in many areas > >>> >>>>> >> > (portability/schema) and > >>> >>>>> >> > I am not sure users (and in particular users of open source > >>> >>>>> >> > runners) > >>> >>>>> >> > get a big benefit of relying on an old version. Maybe this is > >>> >>>>> >> > the > >>> >>>>> >> > moment to reconsider if having a LTS does even make sense > >>> >>>>> >> > given (1) > >>> >>>>> >> > that our end user facing APIs are 'mostly' stable (even if > >>> >>>>> >> > many still > >>> >>>>> >> > called @Experimental). (2) that users get mostly improvements > >>> >>>>> >> > on > >>> >>>>> >> > runners translation and newer APIs with a low cost just by > >>> >>>>> >> > updating > >>> >>>>> >> > the version number, and (3) that in case of any regression in > >>> >>>>> >> > an > >>> >>>>> >> > intermediary release we still can do a minor release even if > >>> >>>>> >> > we have > >>> >>>>> >> > not yet done so, let's not forget that the only thing we need > >>> >>>>> >> > to do > >>> >>>>> >> > this is enough interest to do the release from the maintainers. > >>> >>>>> >> > > >>> >>>>> >> > > >>> >>>>> >> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:00 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev > >>> >>>>> >> > <valen...@google.com> wrote: > >>> >>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>> >> >> I support nominating 2.16.0 as LTS release since in has > >>> >>>>> >> >> robust Python 3 support compared with prior releases, and > >>> >>>>> >> >> also for reasons of pending Python 2 deprecation. This has > >>> >>>>> >> >> been discussed before [1]. As Robert pointed out in that > >>> >>>>> >> >> thread, LTS nomination in Beam is currently retroactive. If > >>> >>>>> >> >> we keep the retroactive policy, the question is how long we > >>> >>>>> >> >> should wait for a release to be considered "safe" for > >>> >>>>> >> >> nomination. Looks like in case of 2.7.0 we waited a month, > >>> >>>>> >> >> see [2,3]. > >>> >>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>> >> >> Thanks, > >>> >>>>> >> >> Valentyn > >>> >>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>> >> >> [1] > >>> >>>>> >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/eba6caa58ea79a7ecbc8560d1c680a366b44c531d96ce5c699d41535@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E > >>> >>>>> >> >> [2] https://beam.apache.org/blog/2018/10/03/beam-2.7.0.html > >>> >>>>> >> >> [3] > >>> >>>>> >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/896cbc9fef2e60f19b466d6b1e12ce1aeda49ce5065a0b1156233f01@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E > >>> >>>>> >> >> > >>> >>>>> >> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 2:46 PM Austin Bennett > >>> >>>>> >> >> <whatwouldausti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>>>> >> >>> > >>> >>>>> >> >>> Hi All, > >>> >>>>> >> >>> > >>> >>>>> >> >>> According to our policies page [1]: "There will be at least > >>> >>>>> >> >>> one new LTS release in a 12 month period, and LTS releases > >>> >>>>> >> >>> are considered deprecated after 12 months" > >>> >>>>> >> >>> > >>> >>>>> >> >>> The last LTS was released 2018-10-02 [2]. > >>> >>>>> >> >>> > >>> >>>>> >> >>> Does that mean the next release (2.16) should be the next > >>> >>>>> >> >>> LTS? It looks like we are in danger of not living up to > >>> >>>>> >> >>> that promise. > >>> >>>>> >> >>> > >>> >>>>> >> >>> Cheers, > >>> >>>>> >> >>> Austin > >>> >>>>> >> >>> > >>> >>>>> >> >>> > >>> >>>>> >> >>> > >>> >>>>> >> >>> [1] https://beam.apache.org/community/policies/ > >>> >>>>> >> >>> > >>> >>>>> >> >>> [2] https://beam.apache.org/get-started/downloads/
