flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Drafting a roadmap for Flink
Date Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:16:50 GMT
+1 for indicating the person currently working on the issue, we can just
open a JIRA issue for each of these. And we can clearly indicate that other
features are not being currently worked on.

How about indicating rough time goals (quarters) for issues that are
currently being worked on (of course with the concern of the assignee)?

I have a problem with priorities: the only priorities I see right now are
P1 (someone is working on this) and P2 (noone is working on this), and this
information is already conveyed by the JIRAs. We can come up with a more
detailed priority scheme, but would this be easier to implement than
date-to-complete goals?

Kostas



On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Fabian Hueske <fhueske@apache.org> wrote:

> Adding a responsible person sounds good. We should make sure that this role
> is clearly communicated though.
>
> How about adding priorities instead of time estimates?
> That would help to see how the priorities are set in Flink and which
> features to expect next (without having a date assigned to it though).
>
> 2015-01-08 11:30 GMT+01:00 Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>:
>
> > Okay, I see what you are going. Some issues have people working on them,
> > some do not.
> >
> > How about we add a "responsible person" to the items that have someone in
> > charge already, and mark others as open?
> >
> > Associating a responsible person (that need not be the one that does all
> > the work, but the one that supervises the issue) may be a good idea in
> > general.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Fabian Hueske <fhueske@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Having an estimate assigned to an issue might give the impression that
> it
> > > is already assigned to somebody.
> > > This would not help to find external contributors who are interested in
> > > helping with a certain feature.
> > >
> > > Issues without estimates are still useful as they show in which
> direction
> > > the project plans to evolve.
> > >
> > > 2015-01-08 11:13 GMT+01:00 Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > The Pig Journal is nice, we could have this evolve into something
> like
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > I think that we need to give some time estimate on the features /
> > issues.
> > > > Otherwise, it is of rather little value - all it says is that people
> > > > thought about that, no one knows when you can plan with it.
> > > >
> > > > We can coarsen the time estimates, though...
> > > >
> > > > Stephan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I very much like the "PIG Journal" here:
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/PIG/Pig+Journal
> > > > > Its basically a nice view (however outdated in that case) on whats
> > > going
> > > > on
> > > > > in the PIG community. You can see finished features on the top,
> > current
> > > > > features being developed in the middle and ideas in the end.
> > > > >
> > > > > The document posted by Stephan is a good start to create a "Flink
> > > > Journal".
> > > > > I agree with Fabian that the estimates are very optimistic.
> > > Implementing
> > > > > all these features including unit tests, documentation and testing
> a
> > > > takes
> > > > > a lot of time.
> > > > > I would suggest to only add estimates (finish dates) to features
> > which
> > > > are
> > > > > currently work in progress.
> > > > > The remainder ("ideas") can have time estimates in months but
> should
> > > not
> > > > > have finish dates. Similarly to Pig, we should put a disclaimer on
> > top
> > > > that
> > > > > we do not guarantee for any feature being developed.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Fabian Hueske <fhueske@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the roadmap should show the long-term development goals
> of
> > > > Flink,
> > > > > > i.e., show that we are going for a ML library, SQL support,
> > > > > Batch-Streaming
> > > > > > integration, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now, it is quite detailed and with very optimistic time
> > > > estimates,
> > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > If we would do everything in time, we would be done with the
> > roadmap
> > > in
> > > > > Q3
> > > > > > 2015...
> > > > > > I would not even put a time on all issues, esp. on things which
> > > depend
> > > > on
> > > > > > other developments (which might not even have started). Also
I
> > would
> > > > make
> > > > > > the estimates more coarse-grained. For short-term goals we could
> > use
> > > > > > quarters, everything does not need an estimate, IMO. Issues
that
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > solved in two months don't even need to be listed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2015-01-08 7:50 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljoscha@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I added some text about my work on the Logical Query feature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Stephan Ewen <
> sewen@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi everyone!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is time we bring the Flink roadmap up to speed
with what
> has
> > > > > > happened
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the last months and what further goals features ideas
have
> come
> > > up.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The link below leads to a Google Doc that contains
an initial
> > set
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > suggestions that some of the committers have come
up with.
> > Please
> > > > > share
> > > > > > > > your opinion on those suggestions and feel free to
suggest
> > > > additional
> > > > > > > items
> > > > > > > > to put on the roadmap.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QZ0NJC03pOBqE6vbK1Ot4bXwoBcszIqzbZ8a6B5vSEo/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is specifically open to everyone, not only committers.
> The
> > > > link
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > allow everyone to add suggestions and comments to
the doc
> (but
> > > not
> > > > to
> > > > > > > edit
> > > > > > > > it directly).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For new suggestions, it would help a lot if you could
also
> > > mention
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > you would be available to help out with that feature
or idea
> -
> > > that
> > > > > > > helps a
> > > > > > > > lot with prioritizing and estimate the time line.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For general suggestions to the "road mapping" process,
please
> > > > respond
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > this mail.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Greetings and happy drafting!
> > > > > > > > Stephan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message