Hey all, I don't have much to add to the general discussion. Just a single comment on:
that we could adjust the bylaws for the connectors such that we need
fewer PMCs to approve a release. Would it be enough to have one PMC
vote per connector release?
I think it's not an option. This particular rule is one of few rules
from the bylaws that actually originates from ASF rather than was
established within the Flink community. I believe we do need 3 PMC votes
for any formal ASF releases [1].
Votes on whether a package is ready to release use majority
approval-- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
Releases may not be vetoed*.*Generally the community will cancel the
release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most
cases the ultimate decision lies with the individual serving as
release manager. The specifics of the process may vary from project
to project,*but the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule is
universal.*
Best,
Dawid
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
On 19/10/2021 14:21, Arvid Heise wrote:
> Okay I think it is clear that the majority would like to keep connectors
> under the Apache Flink umbrella. That means we will not be able to have
> per-connector repositories and project management, automatic dependency
> bumping with Dependabot, or semi-automatic releases.
>
> So then I'm assuming the directory structure that @Chesnay Schepler
> <ches...@apache.org> proposed would be the most beneficial:
> - A root project with some convenience setup.
> - Unrelated subprojects with individual versioning and releases.
> - Branches for minor Flink releases. That is needed anyhow to use new
> features independent of API stability.
> - Each connector maintains its own documentation that is accessible through
> the main documentation.
>
> Any thoughts on alternatives? Do you see risks?
>
> @Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> mentioned offline that we could adjust the
> bylaws for the connectors such that we need fewer PMCs to approve a
> release. Would it be enough to have one PMC vote per connector release? Do
> you know of other ways to tweak the release process to have fewer manual
> work?
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:22 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for initiating this discussion.
>>
>> There are definitely a few things that are not optimal with our
>> current management of connectors. I would not necessarily characterize
>> it as a "mess" though. As the points raised so far show, it isn't easy
>> to find a solution that balances competing requirements and leads to a
>> net improvement.
>>
>> It would be great if we can find a setup that allows for connectors to
>> be released independently of core Flink and that each connector can be
>> released separately. Flink already has separate releases
>> (flink-shaded), so that by itself isn't a new thing. Per-connector
>> releases would need to allow for more frequent releases (without the
>> baggage that a full Flink release comes with).
>>
>> Separate releases would only make sense if the core Flink surface is
>> fairly stable though. As evident from Iceberg (and also Beam), that's
>> not the case currently. We should probably focus on addressing the
>> stability first, before splitting code. A success criteria could be
>> that we are able to build Iceberg and Beam against multiple Flink
>> versions w/o the need to change code. The goal would be that no
>> connector breaks when we make changes to Flink core. Until that's the
>> case, code separation creates a setup where 1+1 or N+1 repositories
>> need to move lock step.
>>
>> Regarding some connectors being more important for Flink than others:
>> That's a fact. Flink w/o Kafka connector (and few others) isn't
>> viable. Testability of Flink was already brought up, can we really
>> certify a Flink core release without Kafka connector? Maybe those
>> connectors that are used in Flink e2e tests to validate functionality
>> of core Flink should not be broken out?
>>
>> Finally, I think that the connectors that move into separate repos
>> should remain part of the Apache Flink project. Larger organizations
>> tend to approve the use of and contribution to open source at the
>> project level. Sometimes it is everything ASF. More often it is
>> "Apache Foo". It would be fatal to end up with a patchwork of projects
>> with potentially different licenses and governance to arrive at a
>> working Flink setup. This may mean we prioritize usability over
>> developer convenience, if that's in the best interest of Flink as a
>> whole.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:59 AM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Generally, the issues are reproducibility and control.
>>>
>>> Stuffs completely broken on the Flink side for a week? Well then so are
>>> the connector repos.
>>> (As-is) You can't go back to a previous version of the snapshot. Which
>>> also means that checking out older commits can be problematic because
>>> you'd still work against the latest snapshots, and they not be
>>> compatible with each other.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/10/2021 15:22, Arvid Heise wrote:
>>>> I was actually betting on snapshots versions. What are the limits?
>>>> Obviously, we can only do a release of a 1.15 connector after 1.15 is
>>>> release.
>>>
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
