Re: [DISCUSS] Graduation to a top-level project

[Mark Liu]

Huge +1

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Hadar Hod 
wrote:

> +1 !!!
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Jesse Anderson 
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:35 PM Frances Perry 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1  You might even say I'm beaming with pride ;-)
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Kenneth Knowles
>  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 !!!
> > > >
> > > > I especially love how the diversity of the community has contributed
> to
> > > the
> > > > conceptual growth and quality of Beam. I can't wait for more!
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Thomas Groh
>  > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > It's been a thrilling experience thus far, and I'm excited for the
> > > > future.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm quite enthusiastic about the growth of the community and the
> > open
> > > > > > discussions!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 at 19:51 Jason Kuster <
> jasonkus...@google.com.
> > > > > invalid>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > An enthusiastic +1!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In particular it's been really great to see the commitment and
> > > > interest
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the community in different kinds of testing. Between what we
> > > > currently
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > on Jenkins and Travis and the in-progress work on IO
> integration
> > > > tests
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > performance tests (plus, I'm sure, other things I'm not aware
> of)
> > > > we're
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > a really good place.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Amit Sela <
> > amitsel...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1, super exciting!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks to JB, Davor and the whole team for creating this
> > > > community. I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > we've achieved a lot in a short time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Amit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 20:36 Tyler Akidau
> > > >  > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1, thanks to everyone who's invested time getting us to
> this
> > > > > point.
> > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -Tyler
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:33 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > > > > > j...@nanthrax.net
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > First of all, I would like to thank the whole team, and
> > > > > especially
> > > > > > > > Davor
> > > > > > > > > > for the great work and commitment to Apache and the
> > > community.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Of course, a big +1 to move forward on graduation !
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > JB
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 11/22/2016 07:19 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > > With all the progress we’ve had recently in Apache
> Beam,
> > I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > we start the discussion about graduation as a new
> > top-level
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache Software Foundation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Graduation means we are a self-sustaining and
> > > self-governing
> > > > > > > > community,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > ready to be a full participant in the Apache Software
> > > > > Foundation.
> > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > > not imply that our community growth is complete or
> that a
> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > of technical maturity has been reached, rather that we
> > are
> > > > on a
> > > > > > > solid
> > > > > > > > > > > trajectory in those areas. After graduation, we will
> > still
> > > > > > > > periodically
> > > > > > > > > > > report to, and be overseen by, the ASF Board to ensure
> > > > > continued
> > > > > > > > growth
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > a healthy community.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is an important milestone for the project.
> It
> > is
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > further grow the user community: many users
> (incorrectly)
> > > see
> > > > > > > > > incubation
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > a sign of instability and are much less likely to
> > consider
> > > us
> > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > production use.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > A way to think about graduation readiness is 

Re: [DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name

[Mark Liu]

+1 ValidatesRunner

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Nice. I like ValidatesRunner.
>
> On Nov 10, 2016 03:39, "Amit Sela" <amitsel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How about @ValidatesRunner ?
> > Seems to complement @NeedsRunner as well.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:47 AM Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > What I would really like to see is automatic derivation of the
> capability
> > > matrix from an extended Runner Test Suite. (As outlined in Thomas'
> doc).
> > >
> > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 at 21:42 Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Huge +1 to this.
> > > >
> > > > The two categories I care most about are:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing under
> > > test";
> > > > today this is NeedsRunner.
> > > > 2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is
> > > > RunnableOnService.
> > > >
> > > > Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I think
> we
> > > can
> > > > make good choices, like we already do.
> > > >
> > > > The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a
> > > pitfall:
> > > > what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not
> > have a
> > > > clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names.
> > > >
> > > > So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to make
> > clear
> > > > that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also want
> > > > RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO modules.
> > > >
> > > > See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is aimed at
> > > case
> > > > 2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new one
> > > added.
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2
> > VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit
> > > >
> > > > Kenn
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> j...@nanthrax.net
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Mark,
> > > > >
> > > > > Generally speaking, I agree.
> > > > >
> > > > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or
> > > > @RunOnRunner
> > > > > sound clearer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > JB
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After
> > having
> > > > >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very
> > > > >> intuitive
> > > > >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build
> lightweight
> > > > >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have
> > to
> > > > run
> > > > >> on a service.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone
> have
> > > > >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight
> to
> > > > >> runner.
> > > > >> Currently, I have two names in my head:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - TestsWithRunners
> > > > >> - RunnerExecutable
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Any thoughts?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Mark
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > > > > jbono...@apache.org
> > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name

[Mark Liu]

Hi all,

I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After having
discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very intuitive
name for those unit tests that require runners and build lightweight
pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have to run
on a service.

So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone have
similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight to runner.
Currently, I have two names in my head:

- TestsWithRunners
- RunnerExecutable

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] New committers!

[Mark Liu]

Congrats for all of you!

Mark

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Kenneth Knowles 
wrote:

> Huzzah!
>
> I've personally enjoyed working together, and I am glad to extend this
> acknowledgement and welcome this addition to the Beam community.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:18 PM Davor Bonaci  wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> > Please join me and the rest of Beam PPMC in welcoming the following
> > contributors as our newest committers. They have significantly
> contributed
> > to the project in different ways, and we look forward to many more
> > contributions in the future.
> >
> > * Thomas Weise
> > Thomas authored the Apache Apex runner for Beam [1]. This is an exciting
> > new runner that opens a new user base. It is a large contribution, which
> > starts the whole new component with a great potential.
> >
> > * Jesse Anderson
> > Jesse has contributed significantly by promoting Beam. He has
> co-developed
> > a Beam tutorial and delivered it at a top big data conference. He
> published
> > several blog posts positioning Beam, Q with the Apache Beam team, and a
> > demo video how to run Beam on multiple runners [2]. On the side, he has
> > authored 7 pull requests and reported 6 JIRA issues.
> >
> > * Thomas Groh
> > Since starting incubation, Thomas has contributed the most commits to the
> > project [3], a total of 226 commits, which is more than anybody else. He
> > has contributed broadly to the project, most significantly by developing
> > from scratch the DirectRunner that supports the full model semantics.
> > Additionally, he has contributed a new set of APIs for testing unbounded
> > pipelines. He published a blog highlighting this work.
> >
> > Congratulations to all three! Welcome!
> >
> > Davor
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/apex-runner
> > [2] http://www.smokinghand.com/
> > [3] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/graphs/contributors
> > ?from=2016-02-01=2016-10-14=c
> >
>

Re: Remove legacy import-order?

[Mark Liu]

+1 for reformatting import order.

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Lukasz Cwik 
wrote:

> +1 for import order
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Amit Sela  wrote:
>
> > +1 on import order as well.
> > Kenneth has a good point about history if we reformat.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 18:59 Kenneth Knowles 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to import order
> > >
> > > I don't care about actually enforcing formatting, but would add it to
> IDE
> > > tips and just make it an "OK topic for code review". Enforcing it would
> > > result in obscuring a lot of history for who to talk to about pieces of
> > > code.
> > >
> > > And by the way there is a recent build of the IntelliJ plugin for
> > > https://github.com/google/google-java-format, available through the
> > usual
> > > plugin search functionality. I use it and it is very nice.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> aljos...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 on the import order
> > > >
> > > > +1 on also starting a discussion about enforced formatting
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 at 06:43 Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Agreed.
> > > > >
> > > > > It makes sense for the import order.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > JB
> > > > >
> > > > > On 08/24/2016 02:32 AM, Ben Chambers wrote:
> > > > > > I think introducing formatting should be a separate discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the import order: this PR demonstrates the change
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/869
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would need to update the second part (applying optimize
> imports)
> > > > prior
> > > > > to
> > > > > > actually merging.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:08 PM Eugene Kirpichov
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Two cents: While we're at it, we could consider enforcing
> > formatting
> > > > as
> > > > > >> well (https://github.com/google/google-java-format). That's a
> > > bigger
> > > > > >> change
> > > > > >> though, and I don't think it has checkstyle integration or
> > anything
> > > > like
> > > > > >> that.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:54 PM Dan Halperin
> > > > > 
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> yeah I think that we would be SO MUCH better off if we worked
> > with
> > > an
> > > > > >>> out-of-the-box IDE. We don't even distribute an
> IntelliJ/Eclipse
> > > > config
> > > > > >>> file right now, and I'd like to not have to.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> But, ugh, it will mess up ongoing PRs. I guess committers could
> > fix
> > > > > them
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >>> merge, or we could just make proposers rebase. (Since
> committers
> > > are
> > > > > most
> > > > > >>> proposers, probably little harm in the latter).
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Jesse Anderson <
> > > > je...@smokinghand.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >  Please. That's the one that always trips me up.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  On Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:10 PM Ben Chambers <
> > bchamb...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > When Beam was contributed it inherited an import order [1]
> that
> > > was
> > > > >  pretty
> > > > > > arbitrary. We've added org.apache.beam [2], but continue to
> use
> > > > this
> > > > > > ordering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both Eclipse and IntelliJ default to grouping imports into
> > > > alphabetic
> > > > > > order. I think it would simplify development if we switched
> our
> > > > >  checkstyle
> > > > > > ordering to agree with these IDEs. This also removes special
> > > > > >> treatment
> > > > >  for
> > > > > > specific packages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If people agree, I'll send out a PR that changes the
> checkstyle
> > > > > > configuration and runs IntelliJ's sort-imports on the
> existing
> > > > files.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Ben
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > org.apache.beam,com.google,android,com,io,Jama,junit,net,
> > > > >  org,sun,java,javax
> > > > > > [2] com.google,android,com,io,Jama,junit,net,org,sun,java,
> > javax
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > > > > jbono...@apache.org
> > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>