I'll submit PR, and tag you, Ismael. Merge once there's a sufficient consensus.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:57 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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/ >
