systemml-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dusenberr...@gmail.com
Subject Re: Release cadence
Date Tue, 07 Mar 2017 19:30:09 GMT
+1 for immediately starting work on SystemML 1.0 as our next release.

At this point, the project and our users will benefit most from a thorough cleanup, as it
will make the project simpler to use and easier to maintain.  Simplicity will allow users
and maintainers to regain focus on ML research and products, which is a win for the entire
community.  We should create a solid list of items that we, and the rest of the community,
want to address for the 1.0 release and make sure that they are indeed completed.  At the
same time, we should ensure that we don't drag out the release process.

-Mike

--

Mike Dusenberry
GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry

Sent from my iPhone.


> On Mar 6, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 for SystemML 1.0 as the next release.
> 
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Deron Eriksson <deroneriksson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Personally I would like the next release to be 1.0. We have been an
>> incubator project since November 2015 and I believe that after over 1,000
>> commits since then that the project is about ready for a 1.0 release.
>> 
>> I agree with Matthias that we need to make a decision regarding this topic.
>> For new issues and fixed issues in JIRA, we need to be able to assign the
>> correct version, or else someone potentially needs to go through and fix
>> the version numbers, as Glenn has been doing. Additionally, it would be
>> nice to do some of the 1.0 code updates (such as removing the old
>> MLContext) now rather than waiting additional months. Also I would like to
>> be able to correctly identify our next version in the online documentation.
>> 
>> 
> How about just make SystemML Next and change the release name when we do
> the release ?
> 
> 
> 
>> Deron
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Matthias Boehm <mboehm7@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> thanks Arvind for bringing some structure to the release process. I
>> think a
>>> fixed cadence of 2 months is useful as it makes upcoming releases more
>>> predictable for devs and users.
>>> 
>>> However, we're discussing a major 1.0 release for a while now. I think it
>>> would be useful to come to an agreement if we go for 1.0 in April or not.
>>> There are some pending changes such as removing the old MLContext,
>> removing
>>> the file-based transform, isolating the matrix block library, and some
>>> language changes that should only be addresses in a major release as they
>>> break backwards compatibility. Right now, we can't touch these changes
>>> without knowing the target release.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I don't see a good reason why we should wait. Postponing this
>>> major release just creates unnecessary overhead in maintaining these old
>>> components that will be removed eventually. Since we cut RC for 0.13 on
>> Feb
>>> 20, I think having an RC around April 20 would be a good target for this
>>> 1.0 release.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Arvind Surve <acs_s@yahoo.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Based on last couple of release cycles, we will continue with 2 months
>>>> release cycles.We will do first RC build by end of first week of second
>>>> month.
>>>> We will plan on releasing next release by end of April 2017.We will
>> have
>>>> RC build on ~April 6th.  -Arvind
>>>> Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center  | http://www.spark.tc/
>>>> 
>>>>      From: Acs S <acs_s@yahoo.com.INVALID>
>>>> To: "dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org" <dev@systemml.incubator.
>>>> apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 11:41 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Release cadence
>>>> 
>>>> We need to release SystemML on more frequent basis to get community
>>>> engaged. It will provide us more feedback on functionality we add.While
>>>> releasing SystemML on monthly basis is challenge due to longer phase of
>>>> validation process we need to find a way to be quicker.
>>>> I can propose options to get closer to monthly release if acceptable.
>>>> Make every two releases available on monthly basis and third on two
>>> months
>>>> basis. This cycle will continue.
>>>> 1. Do minimal testing on two releases (minor releases) and release them
>>> on
>>>> monthly basis. Performance testing is one of the major time consuming
>>>> activity especially for larger data size. We can limit testing only
>> upto
>>>> 80GB. We can do code freeze (other than fixes) at the end of third week
>>> and
>>>> do verification on last week. If we find any issues we can still
>> release
>>>> the code with limitation documented unless issue breaks major
>>>> functionality.2. Do comprehensive testing on third release.   This will
>>>> include performance testing for all data size and every other testing
>> we
>>>> do. We can do code freeze (other than fixes) at the end of third week
>> and
>>>> start verification of code. All issues found will be addressed.
>> Exception
>>>> will be considered.
>>>> 
>>>> Meantime we need to start automating testing pieces.
>>>> 
>>>> Arvind SurveSpark Technology Centerhttp://www.spark.tc/
>>>> 
>>>>      From: Berthold Reinwald <reinwald@us.ibm.com>
>>>> To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 1:35 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Release cadence
>>>> 
>>>> I think that a 2 month cycle would be a good compromise for major/minor
>>>> releases. Fixpack release could be at a 1 month cycle.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Berthold Reinwald
>>>> IBM Almaden Research Center
>>>> office: (408) 927 2208; T/L: 457 2208
>>>> e-mail: reinwald@us.ibm.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From:  Deron Eriksson <deroneriksson@gmail.com>
>>>> To:    dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org
>>>> Date:  01/05/2017 02:14 PM
>>>> Subject:        Re: Release cadence
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> +1 for trying out a 1 month release cycle.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I highly agree with Matthias that there is a lot of overhead
>>> with
>>>> releases, so it would be good if we can work to streamline/automate the
>>>> process as much as possible. Also, it would be good to distribute the
>>>> tasks
>>>> around as much as possible. This can result in cross-training and help
>>>> avoid overburdening the same contributors each month.
>>>> 
>>>> If the overhead slows us down too much, then we can go to a slower
>>> release
>>>> cycle.
>>>> 
>>>> Deron
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:50 PM, <dusenberrymw@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1 for adopting a 1 month release cycle.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mike Dusenberry
>>>>> GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw
>>>>> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 5, 2017, at 1:35 PM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Matthias Boehm
>>>> <mboehm7@googlemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In general, I like the idea of aiming for consistent release
>> cycles.
>>>>>>> However, every month is just too much, at least for me. There
is a
>>>>>>> considerable overhead associated with each release for end-to-end
>>>>>>> performance tests, tests on different environments, code freeze
>> for
>>>> new
>>>>>>> features, etc. Hence, a too short release cycle would not be
>> "agile"
>>>> but
>>>>>>> would actually slow us down. From my perspective, a realistic
>>> release
>>>>>>> cadence would be 2-3 months, maybe a bit more for major releases.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2-3 months of release cadence for an open source is probably a long
>>>>>> stretch, particular for a project that does not have very large set
>>> of
>>>>> 3rd
>>>>>> party dependencies.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As for some of the overhead issues you mentioned, they are probably
>>>> easy
>>>>> to
>>>>>> workaround:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - code-freeze timeframe can be resolved with branches
>>>>>> - end-to-end performance regressions can be avoided by better code
>>>>> review,
>>>>>> and if you were willing to go with 2-3 months without performing
>>> these
>>>>>> tests, we could perform them only for major releases, and
>> proactively
>>>>>> quickly build a minor release with the patch when a user report any
>>>>>> performance regression.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anyway, I would really like to see SystemML more agile with regards
>>> to
>>>>> its
>>>>>> release process because, as I mentioned before, the release early,
>>>>> release
>>>>>> often mantra is good to increase community interest, generate more
>>>>> traffic
>>>>>> to the list as developers discuss the roadmap and release blockers,
>>>> and
>>>>>> also enable users to provide feedback sooner on the areas we are
>>>>> developing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Luciano Resende
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
>>>>>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Deron Eriksson
>>>> Spark Technology Center
>>>> http://www.spark.tc/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Deron Eriksson
>> Spark Technology Center
>> http://www.spark.tc/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Luciano Resende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message