On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:35 AM Austin Bennett <whatwouldausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. >> > Adding +Rose Nguyen <rtngu...@google.com> explicitly to make follow up changes to the dataflow specific documentation mentioned here after Austin's PR to change Beam docs. > > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > 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/ >> >
