Kenn, just to start the discussion, what was your criteria to decide what proposals are worth been a BIP ?
I can clearly spot the most common case to create a BIP: Changes to the model / SDK (this covers most of the 'yes' in your list, with the exception of Pipeline#waitToFinish). Do you guys have ideas for other criteria ? (e.g. are new runners and DSLs worth a BIP ?, or do Infrastructure issues deserve a BIP ?). Ismael On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > +1 to the overall idea, though I would limit it to large and/or long-term > proposals. > > I like: > > - JIRA for tracking: that's what it does best. > - Google Docs for detailed commenting and revision - basically a wiki with > easier commenting > - Beam site page for process description and list of current "BIPs", just > a one liner and a link to JIRA. A proposal to dev@beam could include a > link > to a PR against the asf-site to add the BIP. However, I would agree with > the counter-argument that this could just be a JIRA component or tag. > Either one works for me. Or a page with the process that links to a JIRA > saved search. The more formal list mostly just makes it even more visible, > right? > > I think that the number can be small. Here are examples scraped from the > mailing list archives (in random order) and whether I would use a "BIP": > > - Runner API: yes > - Serialization tech: no > - Dynamic parameters: yes > - Splittable DoFn: yes > - Scio: yes > - Pipeline#waitToFinish(), etc: no > - DoFn setup / teardown: yes > - State & Timers: yes > - Pipeline job naming changes: no > - CoGBK as primitive: yes > - New website design: no > - new DoFn: yes > - Cluster infrastructure for tests: maybe > - Beam recipes: no > - Two spark runners: no > - Nightly builds by Jenkins: maybe > > When I write them all down it really is a lot :-) > > Of course, the first thing that could be discussed in a [PROPOSAL] thread > would be whether to file a "BIP". > > Kenn > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > +1 for the cwiki approach that Aljoshca and Ismael gave examples of. > > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 for a more formal "Improvement Proposals" with ids we can refer to: > > > > > > like Flink does too: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/ > > > Flink+Improvement+Proposals > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Same think at Karaf: https://cwiki.apache.org/ > > confluence/display/KARAF/ > > > > > > > > Combine with Jira. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > On 08/08/2016 10:03 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > > > > > > >> Please have a look at this: > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+ > > > >> Improvement+Proposals > > > >> > > > >> We recently started using this process in Flink and so far are quite > > > happy > > > >> with it. > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 at 06:52 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Good point Ben. > > > >>> > > > >>> I would say a "discussion" Jira can "evolve" to a implementation > > "Jira" > > > >>> (just changing the component). > > > >>> > > > >>> WDYT ? > > > >>> > > > >>> Regards > > > >>> JB > > > >>> > > > >>> On 08/08/2016 06:50 AM, Ben Chambers wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Would we use the same Jira to track the series of PRs implementing > > the > > > >>>> proposal (if accepted) or would it be discussion only (possibly > > linked > > > >>>> to > > > >>>> the implementation tasks)? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016, 9:48 PM Frances Perry <f...@google.com.invalid > > > > > >>>> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'm a huge fan of keeping all the details related to a topic in a > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> relevant > > > >>> > > > >>>> jira issue. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > j...@nanthrax.net> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Hi guys, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> we have now several technical discussions, sent on the mailing > > list > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> with > > > >>> > > > >>>> link to document for details. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I think it's not easy for people to follow the different > > > discussions, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>> > > > >>>> to look for the e-mail containing the document links. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Of course, it's required to have the discussion on the mailing > > list > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> (per > > > >>> > > > >>>> Apache rules). However, maybe it could be helpful to have a place > to > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> find > > > >>> > > > >>>> open discussions, with the link to the mailing list discussion > > thread, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> to the detailed document. > > > >>>>>> It could be on the website (but maybe not easy to maintain and > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> publish), > > > >>> > > > >>>> or on Jira (one Jira per discussion), or a wiki. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> WDYT ? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Regards > > > >>>>>> JB > > > >>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > >>>>>> jbono...@apache.org > > > >>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > >>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > >>> jbono...@apache.org > > > >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > -- > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > jbono...@apache.org > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > > >
