Policies for managing Beam dependencies

[Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@google.com>]

https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/475 adds a dependencies guide to
Website based on the discussions here and in the doc.

Based on a recent discussion in the doc, I added a section on backwards
compatibility. Basically, when upgrading dependencies, PR authors and
reviewers should take care not to break backwards compatibility guarantee
of Beam (till next major version) and authors of PRs that introduce
dependency upgrades should include a statement regarding this verification
in the form of a PR comment. I think this will be a useful addition since
we are committed to semantic versioning.

Any comments are welcome.

Thanks,
Cham

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:03 AM Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@google.com>
wrote:

> Sounds good. I think we can add this under Technical Docs here
> <https://beam.apache.org/contribute/>.
>
> Thanks,
> Cham
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:35 AM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Makes sense. Then finding a good home on the web site is the way to go.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:35 PM Bashir Sadjad <ba...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, I also think that this has relevance for users. I am a user of
>>> Beam not a contributor and only monitor this list at a high level. But I
>>> think the dependency issue is something that many users have to deal with.
>>> It has bitten us at least twice over the last few months due to the fact
>>> that we depend on other libraries too and sometimes we get version
>>> conflicts (which is one of the issues highlighted in the doc
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15m1MziZ5TNd9rh_XN0YYBJfYkt0Oj-Ou9g0KFDPL2aA/edit>
>>> Cham shared). I usually go through file histories on GitHub to try to
>>> figure out why a certain version requirement is there. It would be nice if
>>> the reasons are maintained at a higher level easier to consume by users.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> -B
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:19 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think this is relevant for users. It makes sense for users to know
>>>> about how Beam work with its dependencies and understand how conflicts will
>>>> be addressed and when dependencies will be upgraded.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you think this has relevance for users?
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, it might be a good use of the new Confluence space. I'm not
>>>>> too familiar with the way permission work, but perhaps we can have a more
>>>>> locked down area that is for policy decisions like this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:58 PM Chamikara Jayalath <
>>>>> chamikara@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on the vote (3 PMC +1s and no -1s) and based on the discussions
>>>>>> in the doc (seems to be mostly positive), I think we can go ahead and
>>>>>> implement some of the policies discussed so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have given some of the potential action items below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Automatically generate human readable reports on status of Beam
>>>>>> dependencies weekly and share in dev list.
>>>>>> * Create JIRAs for significantly outdated dependencies based on above
>>>>>> reports.
>>>>>> * Copy some of the component level dependency version declarations to
>>>>>> top level.
>>>>>> * Try to identify owners for dependencies and specify owners in
>>>>>> comments close to dependency declarations.
>>>>>> * Vendor any dependencies that can cause issues if leaked to other
>>>>>> components.
>>>>>> * Add policies discussed so far to the Web site along with reasoning
>>>>>> (from doc).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, I'm happy to refine or add to these polices as needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Cham
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:40 AM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:18 AM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 to these. Thanks for clarifying!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:40 PM Chamikara Jayalath <
>>>>>>>> chamikara@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Kenn,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:14 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +0.5
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I like the spirit of these policies. I think they need a little
>>>>>>>>>> wording work. Comments inline.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Chamikara Jayalath <
>>>>>>>>>>> chamikara@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Human readable reports on status of Beam dependencies are
>>>>>>>>>>>> generated weekly and shared with the Beam community through the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Who is responsible for generating these? The mechanism or
>>>>>>>>>> responsibility should be made clear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I clicked through a doc -> thread -> doc to find even some
>>>>>>>>>> details. It looks like manual run of a gradle command was adopted. So the
>>>>>>>>>> responsibility needs an owner, even if it is "unspecified volunteer on dev@
>>>>>>>>>> and feel free to complain or do it yourself if you don't see it"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is described in following doc (referenced by my doc).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rqr_8a9NYZCgeiXpTIwWLCL7X8amPAVfRXsO72BpBwA/edit#
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Proposal is to run an automated Jenkins job that is run weekly, so
>>>>>>>>> no need for someone to manually generate these reports.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) Beam components should define dependencies and their versions
>>>>>>>>>>>> at the top level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think the big "should" works better with some guidance about
>>>>>>>>>> when something might be an exception, or at least explicit mention that
>>>>>>>>>> there can be rare exceptions. Unless you think that is never the case. If
>>>>>>>>>> there are no exceptions, then say "must" and if we hit a roadblock we can
>>>>>>>>>> revisit the policy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The idea was to allow exceptions. Added more details to the doc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (3) A significantly outdated dependency (identified manually or
>>>>>>>>>>>> through tooling) should result in a JIRA that is a blocker for the next
>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Release manager may choose to push the blocker to the subsequent
>>>>>>>>>>>> release or downgrade from a blocker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How is "significantly outdated" defined? By dev@ discussion?
>>>>>>>>>> Seems like the right way. Anyhow that's what will happen in practice as
>>>>>>>>>> people debate the blocker bug.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This will be either through the automated Jenkins job (see the doc
>>>>>>>>> above, where the proposal is to flag new major versions and new minor
>>>>>>>>> versions that are more than six months old) or manually (for any critical
>>>>>>>>> updates that will not be captured by the Jenkins job) (more details in the
>>>>>>>>> doc). Manually identified critical dependency updates may involve a
>>>>>>>>> discussion in the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (4) Dependency declarations may identify owners that are
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for upgrading the respective dependencies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (5) Dependencies of Java SDK components that may cause issues
>>>>>>>>>>>> to other components if leaked should be shaded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We previously agreed upon our intent to migrate to "pre-shaded"
>>>>>>>>>> aka "vendored" packages:
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/12383d2e5d70026427df43294e30d6524334e16f03d86c9a5860792f@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With Maven, this involved a lot of boilerplate so I never did it.
>>>>>>>>>> With Gradle, we can easily build a re-usable rule to create such a package
>>>>>>>>>> in a couple of lines. I just opened the first WIP PR here:
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5570 it is blocked by
>>>>>>>>>> deleting the poms anyhow so by then we should have a configuration that
>>>>>>>>>> works to vendor our currently shaded artifacts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I think this should be rephrased to "should be vendored" so we
>>>>>>>>>> don't have to revise the policy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pointer. I agree that vendoring is a good approach.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here are the updated policies (and more details added to doc). I
>>>>>>>>> agree with Ahmet's point that votes should be converted to web sites where
>>>>>>>>> we can give more details and examples.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (1.a) Human readable reports on status of Beam dependencies are
>>>>>>>>> generated weekly by an automated Jenkins job and shared with the Beam
>>>>>>>>> community through the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2.a) Beam components should define dependencies and their
>>>>>>>>> versions at the top level. There can be rare exceptions, but they should
>>>>>>>>> come with explanations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (3.a) A significantly outdated dependency (identified manually or
>>>>>>>>> through the automated Jenkins job) should result in a JIRA that is a
>>>>>>>>> blocker for the next release. Release manager may choose to push the
>>>>>>>>> blocker to the subsequent release or downgrade from a blocker.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (4.a) Dependency declarations may identify owners that are
>>>>>>>>> responsible for upgrading the respective dependencies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (5.a) Dependencies of Java SDK components that may cause issues
>>>>>>>>> to other components if leaked should be vendored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Cham
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please vote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve that we adapt these policies
>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve (please provide specific comments)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cham
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8738c13ad7e576bc2fef158d2cc6f809e1c238ab8d5164c78484bf54@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15m1MziZ5TNd9rh_XN0YYBJfYkt0Oj-Ou9g0KFDPL2aA/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>

Re: Policies for managing Beam dependencies

[Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@google.com>]

This is now live: https://beam.apache.org/contribute/dependencies/

Thanks everybody for comments and ideas.

- Cham

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:18 PM Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@google.com>
wrote:

> https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/475 adds a dependencies guide to
> Website based on the discussions here and in the doc.
>
> Based on a recent discussion in the doc, I added a section on backwards
> compatibility. Basically, when upgrading dependencies, PR authors and
> reviewers should take care not to break backwards compatibility guarantee
> of Beam (till next major version) and authors of PRs that introduce
> dependency upgrades should include a statement regarding this verification
> in the form of a PR comment. I think this will be a useful addition since
> we are committed to semantic versioning.
>
> Any comments are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Cham
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:03 AM Chamikara Jayalath <ch...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good. I think we can add this under Technical Docs here
>> <https://beam.apache.org/contribute/>.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cham
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:35 AM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Makes sense. Then finding a good home on the web site is the way to go.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:35 PM Bashir Sadjad <ba...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> FWIW, I also think that this has relevance for users. I am a user of
>>>> Beam not a contributor and only monitor this list at a high level. But I
>>>> think the dependency issue is something that many users have to deal with.
>>>> It has bitten us at least twice over the last few months due to the fact
>>>> that we depend on other libraries too and sometimes we get version
>>>> conflicts (which is one of the issues highlighted in the doc
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/15m1MziZ5TNd9rh_XN0YYBJfYkt0Oj-Ou9g0KFDPL2aA/edit>
>>>> Cham shared). I usually go through file histories on GitHub to try to
>>>> figure out why a certain version requirement is there. It would be nice if
>>>> the reasons are maintained at a higher level easier to consume by users.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> -B
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:19 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think this is relevant for users. It makes sense for users to know
>>>>> about how Beam work with its dependencies and understand how conflicts will
>>>>> be addressed and when dependencies will be upgraded.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think this has relevance for users?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, it might be a good use of the new Confluence space. I'm not
>>>>>> too familiar with the way permission work, but perhaps we can have a more
>>>>>> locked down area that is for policy decisions like this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:58 PM Chamikara Jayalath <
>>>>>> chamikara@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on the vote (3 PMC +1s and no -1s) and based on the
>>>>>>> discussions in the doc (seems to be mostly positive), I think we can go
>>>>>>> ahead and implement some of the policies discussed so far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have given some of the potential action items below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Automatically generate human readable reports on status of Beam
>>>>>>> dependencies weekly and share in dev list.
>>>>>>> * Create JIRAs for significantly outdated dependencies based on
>>>>>>> above reports.
>>>>>>> * Copy some of the component level dependency version declarations
>>>>>>> to top level.
>>>>>>> * Try to identify owners for dependencies and specify owners in
>>>>>>> comments close to dependency declarations.
>>>>>>> * Vendor any dependencies that can cause issues if leaked to other
>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>> * Add policies discussed so far to the Web site along with reasoning
>>>>>>> (from doc).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, I'm happy to refine or add to these polices as needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Cham
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:40 AM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:18 AM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 to these. Thanks for clarifying!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:40 PM Chamikara Jayalath <
>>>>>>>>> chamikara@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kenn,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:14 PM Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +0.5
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I like the spirit of these policies. I think they need a little
>>>>>>>>>>> wording work. Comments inline.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Chamikara Jayalath <
>>>>>>>>>>>> chamikara@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Human readable reports on status of Beam dependencies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> generated weekly and shared with the Beam community through the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who is responsible for generating these? The mechanism or
>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility should be made clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I clicked through a doc -> thread -> doc to find even some
>>>>>>>>>>> details. It looks like manual run of a gradle command was adopted. So the
>>>>>>>>>>> responsibility needs an owner, even if it is "unspecified volunteer on dev@
>>>>>>>>>>> and feel free to complain or do it yourself if you don't see it"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is described in following doc (referenced by my doc).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rqr_8a9NYZCgeiXpTIwWLCL7X8amPAVfRXsO72BpBwA/edit#
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Proposal is to run an automated Jenkins job that is run weekly,
>>>>>>>>>> so no need for someone to manually generate these reports.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Beam components should define dependencies and their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions at the top level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the big "should" works better with some guidance about
>>>>>>>>>>> when something might be an exception, or at least explicit mention that
>>>>>>>>>>> there can be rare exceptions. Unless you think that is never the case. If
>>>>>>>>>>> there are no exceptions, then say "must" and if we hit a roadblock we can
>>>>>>>>>>> revisit the policy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The idea was to allow exceptions. Added more details to the doc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (3) A significantly outdated dependency (identified manually or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> through tooling) should result in a JIRA that is a blocker for the next
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Release manager may choose to push the blocker to the subsequent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release or downgrade from a blocker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How is "significantly outdated" defined? By dev@ discussion?
>>>>>>>>>>> Seems like the right way. Anyhow that's what will happen in practice as
>>>>>>>>>>> people debate the blocker bug.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This will be either through the automated Jenkins job (see the
>>>>>>>>>> doc above, where the proposal is to flag new major versions and new minor
>>>>>>>>>> versions that are more than six months old) or manually (for any critical
>>>>>>>>>> updates that will not be captured by the Jenkins job) (more details in the
>>>>>>>>>> doc). Manually identified critical dependency updates may involve a
>>>>>>>>>> discussion in the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Dependency declarations may identify owners that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for upgrading the respective dependencies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (5) Dependencies of Java SDK components that may cause issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to other components if leaked should be shaded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We previously agreed upon our intent to migrate to "pre-shaded"
>>>>>>>>>>> aka "vendored" packages:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/12383d2e5d70026427df43294e30d6524334e16f03d86c9a5860792f@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With Maven, this involved a lot of boilerplate so I never did
>>>>>>>>>>> it. With Gradle, we can easily build a re-usable rule to create such a
>>>>>>>>>>> package in a couple of lines. I just opened the first WIP PR here:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5570 it is blocked by
>>>>>>>>>>> deleting the poms anyhow so by then we should have a configuration that
>>>>>>>>>>> works to vendor our currently shaded artifacts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I think this should be rephrased to "should be vendored" so
>>>>>>>>>>> we don't have to revise the policy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pointer. I agree that vendoring is a good approach.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here are the updated policies (and more details added to doc). I
>>>>>>>>>> agree with Ahmet's point that votes should be converted to web sites where
>>>>>>>>>> we can give more details and examples.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (1.a) Human readable reports on status of Beam dependencies are
>>>>>>>>>> generated weekly by an automated Jenkins job and shared with the Beam
>>>>>>>>>> community through the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2.a) Beam components should define dependencies and their
>>>>>>>>>> versions at the top level. There can be rare exceptions, but they should
>>>>>>>>>> come with explanations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (3.a) A significantly outdated dependency (identified manually
>>>>>>>>>> or through the automated Jenkins job) should result in a JIRA that is a
>>>>>>>>>> blocker for the next release. Release manager may choose to push the
>>>>>>>>>> blocker to the subsequent release or downgrade from a blocker.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (4.a) Dependency declarations may identify owners that are
>>>>>>>>>> responsible for upgrading the respective dependencies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (5.a) Dependencies of Java SDK components that may cause issues
>>>>>>>>>> to other components if leaked should be vendored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Cham
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please vote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve that we adapt these policies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve (please provide specific comments)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cham
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8738c13ad7e576bc2fef158d2cc6f809e1c238ab8d5164c78484bf54@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15m1MziZ5TNd9rh_XN0YYBJfYkt0Oj-Ou9g0KFDPL2aA/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>