Hi everyone, I started a wiki page about this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Roadmap
If you are working on one of these features, could you insert the corresponding JIRA ticket and expand the description if you think it's not informative enough? I saw that there is a streaming roadmap page as well, I think we should have only one. The styles are currently a bit different though. Perhaps we could isolate some JIRAs/specific features from the projects mentioned in the streaming roadmap and insert them in the general roadmap? What do you think? Best, Kostas On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org> wrote: > +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 <fhue...@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 <se...@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 <fhue...@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 <se...@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 < >> rmetz...@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 <fhue...@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 <aljos...@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 < >> se...@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 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
