You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@beam.apache.org by Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> on 2018/11/02 16:26:33 UTC
Re: What is required for LTS releases? (was: [PROPOSAL] Prepare Beam
2.8.0 release)
Twitter vote concluded with 52 votes with the following results:
- 52% Stable LTS releases
- 46% Upgrade to latest release
- 2% Keep using older releases
This reads like another supporting evidence for making LTS releases. In the
light of this, what do you all think about Kenn's proposal of making
existing branch an LTS branch?
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, user@ cannot reach new users, really. Twitter might, if we have
>> enough of adjacent followers to get it in front of the right people. On the
>> other hand, I find testimonials from experience convincing in this case.
>>
>
> I agree I am not sure how much additional input we will get from a twitter
> poll. Started one anyway (https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/
> 1055598972423684096). I used Thomas's version as the basis and had to
> shorten it to fit the character limits.
>
>
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:42 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We attempted to collect feedback on the mailing lists but did not get
>>>>> much input. From my experience (mostly based on dataflow) there is a
>>>>> sizeable group of users who are less interested in new features and want a
>>>>> version that is stable, that does not have security issues, major data
>>>>> integrity issues etc. In Beam's existing release model that corresponds to
>>>>> the latest release.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would help a lot if we can hear the perspectives of other users who
>>>>> are not present here through the developers who work with them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps user@ and Twitter are good ways to reach relevant audience.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We tried user@ before did not get any feedback [1]. Polling on twitter
>>> sounds like a good idea. Unless there is an objection, I can start a poll
>>> with Thomas's proposed text as is on Beam's twitter account.
>>>
>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95
>>> d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A poll could look like this:
>>>>
>>>> The Beam community is considering LTS (Long Term Support) for selected
>>>> releases. LTS releases would only contain critical bug fixes (security,
>>>> data integrity etc.) and offer an alternative to upgrading to latest Beam
>>>> release with new features. Please indicate your preference for Beam
>>>> upgrades:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Always upgrading to the latest release because I need latest
>>>> features along with bug fixes
>>>> 2) Interested to switch to LTS releases to obtain critical fixes
>>>> 3) Not upgrading (using older release for other reasons)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: What is required for LTS releases? (was: [PROPOSAL] Prepare Beam
2.8.0 release)
Posted by Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>.
There were no new updates, I will start a vote based on the latest proposal.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
> +1 to starting with 2.7 branch and supporting it for 6 months. I think we
> should start the support window of 6 months from the day we agree to do
> this. That way users will at least get the benefit for 6 months after
> learning about LTS status.
>
> It seems like there is a consensus. Should we hold a vote on this?
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, cutting more patch releases is the goal of the LTS release. We
>> have not yet determined what the threshold is for backporting bugfixes
>> (which, in part, depends on how much work that is) nor how often we'd
>> do a release.
>>
>
> How about we start tagging issues with a fix version 2.7.1 and a do a case
> by case decision. Over time we could write down common patterns that we
> used for deciding what to backport.
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:42 PM Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 for using an existing release.
>> >
>> > Regarding set of issues, I think so far the policy has been that we cut
>> patch releases for major issues such as security fixes or major breakages
>> of functionality (we only did one patch release so far IIRC). Are we going
>> to change this policy ? For example, are we going to cut regular patch
>> releases for supported branch (release-2.7.0) within the supported period
>> that fixes known issues ? My preference is to keep existing policy on this
>> regard.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Cham
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 5:12 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, that's a vary good signal.
>> >>
>> >> I propose we start with the 2.7 branch (which has been out in the wild
>> >> for a bit and seems pretty stable), supported for 6 months (from
>> >> now?). We should gather a list of issues, if any, that merit
>> >> backporting.
>>
> >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM Maximilian Michels <mx...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The result shows that there is a demand for an LTS release.
>> >> >
>> >> > +1 for using an existing release. How about six months for the
>> initial
>> >> > LTS release? I think it shouldn't be too long for the first one to
>> give
>> >> > us a chance to make changes to the model.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Max
>> >> >
>> >> > On 02.11.18 17:26, Ahmet Altay wrote:
>> >> > > Twitter vote concluded with 52 votes with the following results:
>> >> > > - 52% Stable LTS releases
>> >> > > - 46% Upgrade to latest release
>> >> > > - 2% Keep using older releases
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This reads like another supporting evidence for making LTS
>> releases. In
>> >> > > the light of this, what do you all think about Kenn's proposal of
>> making
>> >> > > existing branch an LTS branch?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
>> >> > > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Kenneth Knowles <
>> kenn@apache.org
>> >> > > <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Yes, user@ cannot reach new users, really. Twitter might,
>> if we
>> >> > > have enough of adjacent followers to get it in front of the
>> >> > > right people. On the other hand, I find testimonials from
>> >> > > experience convincing in this case.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I agree I am not sure how much additional input we will get
>> from a
>> >> > > twitter poll. Started one anyway
>> >> > > (https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096
>> >> > > <https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096>).
>> I used
>> >> > > Thomas's version as the basis and had to shorten it to fit the
>> >> > > character limits.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Kenn
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM Ahmet Altay <
>> altay@google.com
>> >> > > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Thomas Weise
>> >> > > <thw@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:42 PM Ahmet Altay
>> >> > > <altay@google.com <ma...@google.com>>
>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We attempted to collect feedback on the mailing
>> >> > > lists but did not get much input. From my
>> experience
>> >> > > (mostly based on dataflow) there is a sizeable
>> group
>> >> > > of users who are less interested in new
>> features and
>> >> > > want a version that is stable, that does not
>> have
>> >> > > security issues, major data integrity issues
>> etc. In
>> >> > > Beam's existing release model that corresponds
>> to
>> >> > > the latest release.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > It would help a lot if we can hear the
>> perspectives
>> >> > > of other users who are not present here
>> through the
>> >> > > developers who work with them.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Perhaps user@ and Twitter are good ways to reach
>> >> > > relevant audience.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We tried user@ before did not get any feedback [1].
>> Polling
>> >> > > on twitter sounds like a good idea. Unless there is an
>> >> > > objection, I can start a poll with Thomas's proposed
>> text as
>> >> > > is on Beam's twitter account.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > [1]
>> >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thre
>> ad.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c
>> 7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
>> >> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thr
>> ead.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56
>> c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > A poll could look like this:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The Beam community is considering LTS (Long Term
>> >> > > Support) for selected releases. LTS releases would
>> only
>> >> > > contain critical bug fixes (security, data
>> integrity
>> >> > > etc.) and offer an alternative to upgrading to
>> latest
>> >> > > Beam release with new features. Please indicate
>> your
>> >> > > preference for Beam upgrades:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 1) Always upgrading to the latest release because
>> I need
>> >> > > latest features along with bug fixes
>> >> > > 2) Interested to switch to LTS releases to obtain
>> >> > > critical fixes
>> >> > > 3) Not upgrading (using older release for other
>> reasons)
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>>
>
>
Re: What is required for LTS releases? (was: [PROPOSAL] Prepare Beam
2.8.0 release)
Posted by Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>.
+1 to starting with 2.7 branch and supporting it for 6 months. I think we
should start the support window of 6 months from the day we agree to do
this. That way users will at least get the benefit for 6 months after
learning about LTS status.
It seems like there is a consensus. Should we hold a vote on this?
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com> wrote:
> Yes, cutting more patch releases is the goal of the LTS release. We
> have not yet determined what the threshold is for backporting bugfixes
> (which, in part, depends on how much work that is) nor how often we'd
> do a release.
>
How about we start tagging issues with a fix version 2.7.1 and a do a case
by case decision. Over time we could write down common patterns that we
used for deciding what to backport.
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:42 PM Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for using an existing release.
> >
> > Regarding set of issues, I think so far the policy has been that we cut
> patch releases for major issues such as security fixes or major breakages
> of functionality (we only did one patch release so far IIRC). Are we going
> to change this policy ? For example, are we going to cut regular patch
> releases for supported branch (release-2.7.0) within the supported period
> that fixes known issues ? My preference is to keep existing policy on this
> regard.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cham
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 5:12 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Indeed, that's a vary good signal.
> >>
> >> I propose we start with the 2.7 branch (which has been out in the wild
> >> for a bit and seems pretty stable), supported for 6 months (from
> >> now?). We should gather a list of issues, if any, that merit
> >> backporting.
>
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM Maximilian Michels <mx...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The result shows that there is a demand for an LTS release.
> >> >
> >> > +1 for using an existing release. How about six months for the initial
> >> > LTS release? I think it shouldn't be too long for the first one to
> give
> >> > us a chance to make changes to the model.
> >> >
> >> > -Max
> >> >
> >> > On 02.11.18 17:26, Ahmet Altay wrote:
> >> > > Twitter vote concluded with 52 votes with the following results:
> >> > > - 52% Stable LTS releases
> >> > > - 46% Upgrade to latest release
> >> > > - 2% Keep using older releases
> >> > >
> >> > > This reads like another supporting evidence for making LTS
> releases. In
> >> > > the light of this, what do you all think about Kenn's proposal of
> making
> >> > > existing branch an LTS branch?
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
> >> > > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Kenneth Knowles <
> kenn@apache.org
> >> > > <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, user@ cannot reach new users, really. Twitter might,
> if we
> >> > > have enough of adjacent followers to get it in front of the
> >> > > right people. On the other hand, I find testimonials from
> >> > > experience convincing in this case.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I agree I am not sure how much additional input we will get
> from a
> >> > > twitter poll. Started one anyway
> >> > > (https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096
> >> > > <https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096>).
> I used
> >> > > Thomas's version as the basis and had to shorten it to fit the
> >> > > character limits.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Kenn
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM Ahmet Altay <
> altay@google.com
> >> > > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Thomas Weise
> >> > > <thw@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:42 PM Ahmet Altay
> >> > > <altay@google.com <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > We attempted to collect feedback on the mailing
> >> > > lists but did not get much input. From my
> experience
> >> > > (mostly based on dataflow) there is a sizeable
> group
> >> > > of users who are less interested in new
> features and
> >> > > want a version that is stable, that does not
> have
> >> > > security issues, major data integrity issues
> etc. In
> >> > > Beam's existing release model that corresponds
> to
> >> > > the latest release.
> >> > >
> >> > > It would help a lot if we can hear the
> perspectives
> >> > > of other users who are not present here through
> the
> >> > > developers who work with them.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Perhaps user@ and Twitter are good ways to reach
> >> > > relevant audience.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > We tried user@ before did not get any feedback [1].
> Polling
> >> > > on twitter sounds like a good idea. Unless there is an
> >> > > objection, I can start a poll with Thomas's proposed
> text as
> >> > > is on Beam's twitter account.
> >> > >
> >> > > [1]
> >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> 7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%
> 3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
> >> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> 7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%
> 3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > A poll could look like this:
> >> > >
> >> > > The Beam community is considering LTS (Long Term
> >> > > Support) for selected releases. LTS releases would
> only
> >> > > contain critical bug fixes (security, data integrity
> >> > > etc.) and offer an alternative to upgrading to
> latest
> >> > > Beam release with new features. Please indicate your
> >> > > preference for Beam upgrades:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1) Always upgrading to the latest release because I
> need
> >> > > latest features along with bug fixes
> >> > > 2) Interested to switch to LTS releases to obtain
> >> > > critical fixes
> >> > > 3) Not upgrading (using older release for other
> reasons)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
>
Re: What is required for LTS releases? (was: [PROPOSAL] Prepare Beam
2.8.0 release)
Posted by Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>.
Yes, cutting more patch releases is the goal of the LTS release. We
have not yet determined what the threshold is for backporting bugfixes
(which, in part, depends on how much work that is) nor how often we'd
do a release.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:42 PM Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@google.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for using an existing release.
>
> Regarding set of issues, I think so far the policy has been that we cut patch releases for major issues such as security fixes or major breakages of functionality (we only did one patch release so far IIRC). Are we going to change this policy ? For example, are we going to cut regular patch releases for supported branch (release-2.7.0) within the supported period that fixes known issues ? My preference is to keep existing policy on this regard.
>
> Thanks,
> Cham
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 5:12 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, that's a vary good signal.
>>
>> I propose we start with the 2.7 branch (which has been out in the wild
>> for a bit and seems pretty stable), supported for 6 months (from
>> now?). We should gather a list of issues, if any, that merit
>> backporting.
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM Maximilian Michels <mx...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > The result shows that there is a demand for an LTS release.
>> >
>> > +1 for using an existing release. How about six months for the initial
>> > LTS release? I think it shouldn't be too long for the first one to give
>> > us a chance to make changes to the model.
>> >
>> > -Max
>> >
>> > On 02.11.18 17:26, Ahmet Altay wrote:
>> > > Twitter vote concluded with 52 votes with the following results:
>> > > - 52% Stable LTS releases
>> > > - 46% Upgrade to latest release
>> > > - 2% Keep using older releases
>> > >
>> > > This reads like another supporting evidence for making LTS releases. In
>> > > the light of this, what do you all think about Kenn's proposal of making
>> > > existing branch an LTS branch?
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
>> > > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kenn@apache.org
>> > > <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Yes, user@ cannot reach new users, really. Twitter might, if we
>> > > have enough of adjacent followers to get it in front of the
>> > > right people. On the other hand, I find testimonials from
>> > > experience convincing in this case.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I agree I am not sure how much additional input we will get from a
>> > > twitter poll. Started one anyway
>> > > (https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096
>> > > <https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096>). I used
>> > > Thomas's version as the basis and had to shorten it to fit the
>> > > character limits.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Kenn
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
>> > > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Thomas Weise
>> > > <thw@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:42 PM Ahmet Altay
>> > > <altay@google.com <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > We attempted to collect feedback on the mailing
>> > > lists but did not get much input. From my experience
>> > > (mostly based on dataflow) there is a sizeable group
>> > > of users who are less interested in new features and
>> > > want a version that is stable, that does not have
>> > > security issues, major data integrity issues etc. In
>> > > Beam's existing release model that corresponds to
>> > > the latest release.
>> > >
>> > > It would help a lot if we can hear the perspectives
>> > > of other users who are not present here through the
>> > > developers who work with them.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps user@ and Twitter are good ways to reach
>> > > relevant audience.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > We tried user@ before did not get any feedback [1]. Polling
>> > > on twitter sounds like a good idea. Unless there is an
>> > > objection, I can start a poll with Thomas's proposed text as
>> > > is on Beam's twitter account.
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
>> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > A poll could look like this:
>> > >
>> > > The Beam community is considering LTS (Long Term
>> > > Support) for selected releases. LTS releases would only
>> > > contain critical bug fixes (security, data integrity
>> > > etc.) and offer an alternative to upgrading to latest
>> > > Beam release with new features. Please indicate your
>> > > preference for Beam upgrades:
>> > >
>> > > 1) Always upgrading to the latest release because I need
>> > > latest features along with bug fixes
>> > > 2) Interested to switch to LTS releases to obtain
>> > > critical fixes
>> > > 3) Not upgrading (using older release for other reasons)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
Re: What is required for LTS releases? (was: [PROPOSAL] Prepare Beam
2.8.0 release)
Posted by Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@google.com>.
+1 for using an existing release.
Regarding set of issues, I think so far the policy has been that we cut
patch releases for major issues such as security fixes or major breakages
of functionality (we only did one patch release so far IIRC). Are we going
to change this policy ? For example, are we going to cut regular patch
releases for supported branch (release-2.7.0) within the supported period
that fixes known issues ? My preference is to keep existing policy on this
regard.
Thanks,
Cham
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 5:12 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com> wrote:
> Indeed, that's a vary good signal.
>
> I propose we start with the 2.7 branch (which has been out in the wild
> for a bit and seems pretty stable), supported for 6 months (from
> now?). We should gather a list of issues, if any, that merit
> backporting.
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM Maximilian Michels <mx...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > The result shows that there is a demand for an LTS release.
> >
> > +1 for using an existing release. How about six months for the initial
> > LTS release? I think it shouldn't be too long for the first one to give
> > us a chance to make changes to the model.
> >
> > -Max
> >
> > On 02.11.18 17:26, Ahmet Altay wrote:
> > > Twitter vote concluded with 52 votes with the following results:
> > > - 52% Stable LTS releases
> > > - 46% Upgrade to latest release
> > > - 2% Keep using older releases
> > >
> > > This reads like another supporting evidence for making LTS releases. In
> > > the light of this, what do you all think about Kenn's proposal of
> making
> > > existing branch an LTS branch?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
> > > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kenn@apache.org
> > > <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, user@ cannot reach new users, really. Twitter might, if
> we
> > > have enough of adjacent followers to get it in front of the
> > > right people. On the other hand, I find testimonials from
> > > experience convincing in this case.
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree I am not sure how much additional input we will get from a
> > > twitter poll. Started one anyway
> > > (https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096
> > > <https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096>). I
> used
> > > Thomas's version as the basis and had to shorten it to fit the
> > > character limits.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kenn
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
> > > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Thomas Weise
> > > <thw@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:42 PM Ahmet Altay
> > > <altay@google.com <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > We attempted to collect feedback on the mailing
> > > lists but did not get much input. From my
> experience
> > > (mostly based on dataflow) there is a sizeable
> group
> > > of users who are less interested in new features
> and
> > > want a version that is stable, that does not have
> > > security issues, major data integrity issues etc.
> In
> > > Beam's existing release model that corresponds to
> > > the latest release.
> > >
> > > It would help a lot if we can hear the perspectives
> > > of other users who are not present here through the
> > > developers who work with them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps user@ and Twitter are good ways to reach
> > > relevant audience.
> > >
> > >
> > > We tried user@ before did not get any feedback [1].
> Polling
> > > on twitter sounds like a good idea. Unless there is an
> > > objection, I can start a poll with Thomas's proposed text
> as
> > > is on Beam's twitter account.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
> > > <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > A poll could look like this:
> > >
> > > The Beam community is considering LTS (Long Term
> > > Support) for selected releases. LTS releases would only
> > > contain critical bug fixes (security, data integrity
> > > etc.) and offer an alternative to upgrading to latest
> > > Beam release with new features. Please indicate your
> > > preference for Beam upgrades:
> > >
> > > 1) Always upgrading to the latest release because I
> need
> > > latest features along with bug fixes
> > > 2) Interested to switch to LTS releases to obtain
> > > critical fixes
> > > 3) Not upgrading (using older release for other
> reasons)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
Re: What is required for LTS releases? (was: [PROPOSAL] Prepare Beam
2.8.0 release)
Posted by Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>.
Indeed, that's a vary good signal.
I propose we start with the 2.7 branch (which has been out in the wild
for a bit and seems pretty stable), supported for 6 months (from
now?). We should gather a list of issues, if any, that merit
backporting.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:07 AM Maximilian Michels <mx...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> The result shows that there is a demand for an LTS release.
>
> +1 for using an existing release. How about six months for the initial
> LTS release? I think it shouldn't be too long for the first one to give
> us a chance to make changes to the model.
>
> -Max
>
> On 02.11.18 17:26, Ahmet Altay wrote:
> > Twitter vote concluded with 52 votes with the following results:
> > - 52% Stable LTS releases
> > - 46% Upgrade to latest release
> > - 2% Keep using older releases
> >
> > This reads like another supporting evidence for making LTS releases. In
> > the light of this, what do you all think about Kenn's proposal of making
> > existing branch an LTS branch?
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
> > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kenn@apache.org
> > <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, user@ cannot reach new users, really. Twitter might, if we
> > have enough of adjacent followers to get it in front of the
> > right people. On the other hand, I find testimonials from
> > experience convincing in this case.
> >
> >
> > I agree I am not sure how much additional input we will get from a
> > twitter poll. Started one anyway
> > (https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096
> > <https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096>). I used
> > Thomas's version as the basis and had to shorten it to fit the
> > character limits.
> >
> >
> > Kenn
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
> > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Thomas Weise
> > <thw@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:42 PM Ahmet Altay
> > <altay@google.com <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> > We attempted to collect feedback on the mailing
> > lists but did not get much input. From my experience
> > (mostly based on dataflow) there is a sizeable group
> > of users who are less interested in new features and
> > want a version that is stable, that does not have
> > security issues, major data integrity issues etc. In
> > Beam's existing release model that corresponds to
> > the latest release.
> >
> > It would help a lot if we can hear the perspectives
> > of other users who are not present here through the
> > developers who work with them.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps user@ and Twitter are good ways to reach
> > relevant audience.
> >
> >
> > We tried user@ before did not get any feedback [1]. Polling
> > on twitter sounds like a good idea. Unless there is an
> > objection, I can start a poll with Thomas's proposed text as
> > is on Beam's twitter account.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
> > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E>
> >
> >
> > A poll could look like this:
> >
> > The Beam community is considering LTS (Long Term
> > Support) for selected releases. LTS releases would only
> > contain critical bug fixes (security, data integrity
> > etc.) and offer an alternative to upgrading to latest
> > Beam release with new features. Please indicate your
> > preference for Beam upgrades:
> >
> > 1) Always upgrading to the latest release because I need
> > latest features along with bug fixes
> > 2) Interested to switch to LTS releases to obtain
> > critical fixes
> > 3) Not upgrading (using older release for other reasons)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Re: What is required for LTS releases? (was: [PROPOSAL] Prepare Beam
2.8.0 release)
Posted by Maximilian Michels <mx...@apache.org>.
The result shows that there is a demand for an LTS release.
+1 for using an existing release. How about six months for the initial
LTS release? I think it shouldn't be too long for the first one to give
us a chance to make changes to the model.
-Max
On 02.11.18 17:26, Ahmet Altay wrote:
> Twitter vote concluded with 52 votes with the following results:
> - 52% Stable LTS releases
> - 46% Upgrade to latest release
> - 2% Keep using older releases
>
> This reads like another supporting evidence for making LTS releases. In
> the light of this, what do you all think about Kenn's proposal of making
> existing branch an LTS branch?
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
> <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kenn@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Yes, user@ cannot reach new users, really. Twitter might, if we
> have enough of adjacent followers to get it in front of the
> right people. On the other hand, I find testimonials from
> experience convincing in this case.
>
>
> I agree I am not sure how much additional input we will get from a
> twitter poll. Started one anyway
> (https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096
> <https://twitter.com/ApacheBeam/status/1055598972423684096>). I used
> Thomas's version as the basis and had to shorten it to fit the
> character limits.
>
>
> Kenn
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
> <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Thomas Weise
> <thw@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:42 PM Ahmet Altay
> <altay@google.com <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
>
> We attempted to collect feedback on the mailing
> lists but did not get much input. From my experience
> (mostly based on dataflow) there is a sizeable group
> of users who are less interested in new features and
> want a version that is stable, that does not have
> security issues, major data integrity issues etc. In
> Beam's existing release model that corresponds to
> the latest release.
>
> It would help a lot if we can hear the perspectives
> of other users who are not present here through the
> developers who work with them.
>
>
> Perhaps user@ and Twitter are good ways to reach
> relevant audience.
>
>
> We tried user@ before did not get any feedback [1]. Polling
> on twitter sounds like a good idea. Unless there is an
> objection, I can start a poll with Thomas's proposed text as
> is on Beam's twitter account.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7d890d6ed221c722a95d9c773583450767b79ee0c0c78f48a56c7eba@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E>
>
>
> A poll could look like this:
>
> The Beam community is considering LTS (Long Term
> Support) for selected releases. LTS releases would only
> contain critical bug fixes (security, data integrity
> etc.) and offer an alternative to upgrading to latest
> Beam release with new features. Please indicate your
> preference for Beam upgrades:
>
> 1) Always upgrading to the latest release because I need
> latest features along with bug fixes
> 2) Interested to switch to LTS releases to obtain
> critical fixes
> 3) Not upgrading (using older release for other reasons)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>