Alright, let's publish the message on Twitter and echo on Slack once that's done. Thank you!
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:31 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > That sounds reasonable to me. I agree, it is better to get specific > reasons rather than a yes/no answer. > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:50 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> > wrote: > >> After thinking about it for a bit, I am not sure whether a poll would be >> actionable. For example, if 1000 users provide a positive response and 5 >> users provide a negative response, how do we interpret that and where do >> we draw a line? How about instead we encourage users to reach out, and tell >> what is not working for them? For example: >> >> Beam is considering making 2.23.0 a final release supporting Py2. If you >> are not able to switch to Python 3, please let us know why: [short link to >> user@ thread] [1]. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> [1] >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0de71d98d98b213dd1d0c45c1f5642135116f25def5637a5f41c8d29%40%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:50 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:38 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev < >>> valen...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I have reached out to user@ for feedback on Python 3 migration[1]. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe also ask on slack? There are quite a bit of users there as well. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Could somebody from PMC please help with Twitter poll? >>>> >>> >>> I can try to do this. What question would you like to ask? I do not know >>> much about twitter polls but I assume they have character limits similar to >>> regular tweets. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Technically, we can proceed with the change between 2.23.0 and 2.24.0, >>>> so that's after 2.23.0 is cut and we give sufficient time for users to >>>> respond. >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0de71d98d98b213dd1d0c45c1f5642135116f25def5637a5f41c8d29%40%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E >>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:22 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes we need to poll this outside as Robert proposed. >>>>> >>>>> The proposed last support version corresponds with the next release >>>>> that will be >>>>> cut in two weeks. Sounds a bit short if we count the time to poll >>>>> people on this >>>>> subject but still could be. >>>> >>>> Technically, we can proceed with the change between 2.23.0 and 2.24.0, >>>> so that's after 2.23.0 is cut and we give sufficient time for users to >>>> respond. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I remember Chad mentioned in this thread the impossibility to get >>>>> support for >>>>> python 2 in his industry until the end of the year, Maybe things have >>>>> improved. >>>>> Have they? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:10 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > I like that option as a concrete proposal. I think we should >>>>> circulate it more widely (the users list, twitter poll, at least a new >>>>> thread...), maybe phrasing it as "is there any reason you couldn't migrate >>>>> to Python 3 (or stick with an older version of Beam) after 2.23 (due to be >>>>> cut here in a couple of weeks)?" If there is strong concern/pushback, we >>>>> could consider holding on for one more release. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:54 AM David Cavazos <dcava...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> +1 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:52 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> +1 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 4:27 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> As a concrete proposal, could we commit to removing python 2 >>>>> support by 2.24? In other words, mark the next release 2.23 as the last >>>>> python 2 compatible Beam version. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:09 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < >>>>> valen...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another input here: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you opened a Python PR in the last few days, you probably >>>>> noticed that our test suites were broken by a transitive dependency of >>>>> Beam >>>>> that dropped python 2 support, but did not declare python_requires>=3 in >>>>> its setup.py [1]. This temporarily broke a subset of Beam Py2 users (who >>>>> did not explicitly pin the 'rsa' dependency), and still affects Beam >>>>> development[2]. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is the second time[3] Beam is affected with an issue of >>>>> this kind, so support of Python 2 starts to slow down our development, and >>>>> add toil for maintainers of packages we depend on (both directly and >>>>> transitively). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/sybrenstuvel/python-rsa/issues/152 >>>>> >>>>> [2] >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9993b40b0c1cb8682ce56013165d4b80fdde0ee469a73bcb9466ddfb%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>>>> >>>>> [3] https://github.com/hamcrest/PyHamcrest/issues/131 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:06 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for re-opening this Valentyn. I am in favor of EOLing >>>>> py2 support sooner than later. The reality is that we will not be >>>>> effectively supporting beam python 2 for a long time while the ecosystem >>>>> already EOLed python 2. That said, a significant chunk (but no longer a >>>>> majority) of our users are still using python 2. Upgrades are painful, it >>>>> might be especially painful nowadays. It would be good to hear counter >>>>> view >>>>> points, user voices related to this. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:53 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < >>>>> valen...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Back at the end of February we decided to revisit this >>>>> conversation in 3 months. Do folks on this thread have any new input or >>>>> perspective regarding us balancing "user pain/contributor pain/our ability >>>>> to continuously test with python 2 in a shifting environment"? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Some new information on my end is that we have been seeing >>>>> steady adoption of Python 3 among Beam Python users in Dataflow, >>>>> particularly strong adoption among streaming users, and Dataflow is >>>>> sunsetting Python 2 support for all released Beam SDKs later this year >>>>> [1]. >>>>> We will have to remove Python 2 Beam test suites that use Dataflow when >>>>> Dataflow runner disables Py2 support if this happens before Beam Py2 EOL >>>>> (when we have to remove all Py2 suites), including performance tests that >>>>> still use Dataflow on Python 3. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> I am curious how much motivation there is in the community at >>>>> this moment to continue Py2 support in Beam, whether any previous Py3 >>>>> migration blockers were resolved or any new blockers discovered among Beam >>>>> users. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> [1] >>>>> https://cloud.google.com/python/docs/python2-sunset/#dataflow >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:52 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < >>>>> valen...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> That's good news! Thanks for sharing. >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Another datapoint, here are a few of Beam's dependencies that >>>>> no longer release new py2 artifacts (I looked at REQUIRED_PACKAGES + aws, >>>>> gcp, and interactive extras): >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> hdfs >>>>> >>>>>>>> numpy >>>>> >>>>>>>> pyarrow >>>>> >>>>>>>> ipython >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> There are more if we include transitive dependencies and >>>>> test-only packages. I also remember encountering one issue last month that >>>>> was broken only on Py2, which we had to go back and fix. >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> If others have noticed frictions related to ongoing Py2 >>>>> support or have updates on previously mentioned Py3 migration blockers, >>>>> feel free to post them. >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:19 AM Robert Bradshaw < >>>>> rober...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> It hasn't been 3 months yet, but I wanted to call out a >>>>> milestone that >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Python 3 downloads crossed the 50% threshold on pypi, if >>>>> just briefly. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:40 AM Ismaël Mejía < >>>>> ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>> > > I would suggest re-evaluating this within the next 3 >>>>> months again. We need to balance between user pain/contributor pain/our >>>>> ability to continuously test with python 2 in a shifting environment. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>> > Good idea for the in 3 months evaluation, at that point >>>>> also distributions will probably be phasing out python2 by default which >>>>> definitely help in this direction. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> > Thanks for updating the roadmap Ahmet >>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:49 AM Ahmet Altay < >>>>> al...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 1:29 AM Ismaël Mejía < >>>>> ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> I am with Chad on this, we should probably extend it a >>>>> bit more, even if it >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> makes us struggle a bit at least we have some >>>>> workarounds as Robert suggests, >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> and as Chad said there are still many people playing the >>>>> python 3 catchup game, >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> so worth to support those users. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> But maybe it is worth to evaluate the current state >>>>> later in the year. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> I would suggest re-evaluating this within the next 3 >>>>> months again. We need to balance between user pain/contributor pain/our >>>>> ability to continuously test with python 2 in a shifting environment. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> In the >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> meantime can someone please update our Roadmap in the >>>>> website with this info and >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> where we are with Python 3 support (it looks not up to >>>>> date). >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> https://beam.apache.org/roadmap/ >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> I made a minor change to update that page ( >>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/10848). A more comprehensive >>>>> update to that page and linked ( >>>>> https://beam.apache.org/roadmap/python-sdk/#python-3-support) would >>>>> still be welcome. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> - Ismaël >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:49 PM Robert Bradshaw < >>>>> rober...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:12 PM Chad Dombrova < >>>>> chad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >> Not to mention that all the nice work for the type >>>>> hints will have to be redone in the for 3.x. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > Note that there's a tool for automatically converting >>>>> type comments to annotations: https://github.com/ilevkivskyi/com2ann >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > So don't let that part bother you. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> +1, I wouldn't worry about what can be easily automated. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > I'm curious what other features you'd like to be >>>>> using in the Beam source that you cannot now. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> I hit things occasionally, e.g. I just ran into wanting >>>>> keyword-only >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> arguments the other day. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >> It seems the faster we drop support the better. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > I've already gone over my position on this, but a >>>>> refresher for those who care: some of the key vendors that support my >>>>> industry will not offer python3-compatible versions of their software >>>>> until >>>>> the 4th quarter of 2020. If Beam switches to python3-only before that >>>>> point we may be forced to stop contributing features (note: I'm the guy >>>>> who >>>>> added the type hints :). Every month you can give us would be greatly >>>>> appreciated. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> As another data point, we're still 80/20 on Py2/Py3 for >>>>> downloads at >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> PyPi [1] (which I've heard should be taken with a grain >>>>> of salt, but >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> likely isn't totally off). IMHO that ratio needs to be >>>>> way higher for >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Python 3 to consider dropping Python 2. It's pretty >>>>> noisy, but say it >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> doubles every 3 months that would put us at least >>>>> mid-year before we >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> hit a cross-over point. On the other hand Q4 2020 is >>>>> probably a >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> stretch. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> We could consider whether it needs to be an >>>>> all-or-nothing thing as >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> well. E.g. perhaps some features could be Python 3 only >>>>> sooner than >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> the whole codebase. (This would have to be well >>>>> justified.) Another >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> mitigation is that it is possible to mix Python 2 and >>>>> Python 3 in the >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> same pipeline with portability, so if there's a library >>>>> that you need >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> for one DoFn it doesn't mean you have to hold back your >>>>> whole >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> pipeline. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> - Robert >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> [1] https://pypistats.org/packages/apache-beam , and >>>>> that 20% may just >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> be a spike. >>>>> >>>>
