Re: Release 0.6.0

Thanks Ahmet ! Regards JB On 03/02/2017 07:42 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: Sure, I can wait. To be clear, Thursday night in which time zone? Thank you, Ahmet On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Hi Ahmet, Can you wait up to Thursday night ? Trying to

Re: Release 0.6.0

Sure, I can wait. To be clear, Thursday night in which time zone? Thank you, Ahmet On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Ahmet, > > Can you wait up to Thursday night ? Trying to merge BEAM-649. > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB > > > On 03/01/2017 07:23

Re: First stable release: version designation?

Hi Davor, For a Beam community perspective, 1.0.0 would make more sense. We have a fair number of people starting with Beam (without knowing Dataflow). However, as Dataflow SDK (origins of Beam) was in 1.0.0, in order to avoid confusion with users coming to Beam from Dataflow, 2.0.0 could

Re: Pipeline termination in the unified Beam model

+1 I think it's a fair claim that a PCollection is "done" when it's watermark reaches positive infinity, and then it's easy to claim that a Pipeline is "done" when all of its PCollections are done. Completion is an especially reasonable claim if we consider positive infinity to be an actual

Pipeline termination in the unified Beam model

Raising this onto the mailing list from https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-849 The issue came up: what does it mean for a pipeline to finish, in the Beam model? Note that I am deliberately not talking about "batch" and "streaming" pipelines, because this distinction does not exist in the

Re: Beam File System in the Python SDK

Great! Thanks Sourabh. - Cham On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:58 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > Much needed! Added a couple of comments. > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Sourabh Bajaj < > sourabhba...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > BEAM-1441

Re: First stable release: version designation?

The following explanation for adopting 2.0 version should be put in release notes for the stable release. Cheers On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Dan Halperin wrote: > A large set of Beam users will be coming from the pre-Apache technologies > (aka Google Cloud

Re: Beam File System in the Python SDK

Much needed! Added a couple of comments. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Sourabh Bajaj < sourabhba...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi, > > BEAM-1441 is a ticket > for > implementing the Beam File System in the Python SDK similar to the one >

Beam File System in the Python SDK

Hi, BEAM-1441 is a ticket for implementing the Beam File System in the Python SDK similar to the one introduced in BEAM-59 . I tried to take a pass on the implementation in #2136

Re: First stable release: version designation?

A large set of Beam users will be coming from the pre-Apache technologies (aka Google Cloud Dataflow, Scio). Because Dataflow was 1.0 before Beam started, there is a lot of pre-existing documentation, Stack Overflow, etc. that refers to version 1.0 to mean what is now a year-and-a-half old

Apache Beam (virtual) contributor meeting @ Tue Mar 7, 2017

Hi everyone, Based on the high demand [1], let's try to organize a virtual contributor meeting on Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 15:00 UTC. For convenience, calendar link [2] and an .ics file are attached. I tried to accommodate as many time zones as possible, but I know it might be hard for some of

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I think 1.0.0 for a couple of reasons: * It makes sense coming after 0.X (+1 Jesse). * It is the FIRST stable release as a project, regardless of its roots. * while the SDK is definitely a 2.0.0, Beam is not made only of the SDK, and I hope we'll have more milage with users running all sorts of

Re: First stable release: version designation?

I think 1.0 makes the most sense. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 10:57 AM Davor Bonaci wrote: > The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see > discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable release" > for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or

Re: Merge HadoopInputFormatIO and HDFSIO in a single module

I wanted to follow up on this thread since I see some potential blocking questions arising, and I'm trying to help dipti along with her PR. Dipti's PR[1] is currently written to put files into: io/hadoop/inputformat The recent changes to create hadoop-common created: io/hadoop-common This means

First stable release: version designation?

The first stable release is our next major project-wide goal; see discussion in [1]. I've been referring to it as "the first stable release" for a long time, not "1.0.0" or "2.0.0" or "2017" or something else, to make sure we have an unbiased discussion and a consensus-based decision on this

Re: Release 0.6.0

I just closed the last blocking issue, we should be good to go now. Sorry again for the hold-up. On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 18:38 Ahmet Altay wrote: Thank you all. I will wait for release blocking issues to be closed. Sergio, thank you for the information. I will

Re: Performance Testing Next Steps

Thanks for writing this and taking care of this, Jason! I'm afraid I also cannot add anything except that I'm excited to see some results from this. On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 at 03:28 Kenneth Knowles wrote: Just got a chance to look this over. I don't have anything to add,

Re: Next major milestone: first stable release

Yes, fully agree. As far as I understood/know, BEAM-59 is targeted for Beam 1.0 (it's what we discussed with Pei and Davor). Regards JB On 03/01/2017 11:39 AM, Ismaël Mejía wrote: Also joining a bit late, I agree with Amit, HDFS improvements are a really good thing to have before the stable