Hi! Sorry for the late involvement. Here are some thoughts from my side:
Definitely +1 to publishing to PyPy, even if it is a binary release. Community growth into other communities is great, and if this is the natural way to reach developers in the Python community, let's do it. This is not about our convenience, but reaching users. I think the way to look at this is that this is a convenience distribution channel, courtesy of the Flink community. It is not an Apache release, we make this clear in the Readme. Of course, this doesn't mean we don't try to uphold similar standards as for our official release (like proper license information). Concerning credentials sharing, I would be fine with whatever option. The PMC doesn't own it (it is an initiative by some community members), but the PMC needs to ensure trademark compliance, so slight preference for option #1 (PMC would have means to correct problems). I believe there is no need to differentiate between Scala versions, because this is merely a convenience thing for pure Python users. Users that mix python and scala (and thus depend on specific scala versions) can still download from Apache or build themselves. Best, Stephan On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:51 AM jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Thanks for the feedback @Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> @Dian! > > I think using `apache-flink` for the project name also makes sense to me. > due to we should always keep in mind that Flink is owned by Apache. (And > beam also using this pattern `apache-beam` for Python API) > > Regarding the Python API release with the JAVA JARs, I think the principle > of consideration is the convenience of the user. So, Thanks for the > explanation @Dian! > > And your right @Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> we can't make a > hasty decision and we need more people's opinions！ > > So, I appreciate it if anyone can give us feedback and suggestions! > > Best, > Jincheng > > > > > Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> 于2019年7月3日周三 下午8:46写道： > > > So this would not be a source release then, but a full-blown binary > > release. > > > > Maybe it is just me, but I find it a bit suspect to ship an entire java > > application via PyPI, just because there's a Python API for it. > > > > We definitely need input from more people here. > > > > On 03/07/2019 14:09, Dian Fu wrote: > > > Hi Chesnay, > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the suggestions. > > > > > > Regarding “distributing java/scala code to PyPI”: > > > The Python Table API is just a wrapper of the Java Table API and > without > > the java/scala code, two steps will be needed to set up an environment to > > execute a Python Table API program: > > > 1) Install pyflink using "pip install apache-flink" > > > 2) Download the flink distribution and set the FLINK_HOME to it. > > > Besides, users have to make sure that the manually installed Flink is > > compatible with the pip installed pyflink. > > > > > > Bundle the java/scala code inside the Python package will eliminate > step > > 2) and makes it more simple for users to install pyflink. There was a > short > > discussion <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-1267> on this in > > Spark community and they finally decide to package the java/scala code in > > the python package. (BTW, PySpark only bundle the jars of scala 2.11). > > > > > > Regards, > > > Dian > > > > > >> 在 2019年7月3日，下午7:13，Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> 写道： > > >> > > >> The existing artifact in the pyflink project was neither released by > > the Flink project / anyone affiliated with it nor approved by the Flink > PMC. > > >> > > >> As such, if we were to use this account I believe we should delete it > > to not mislead users that this is in any way an apache-provided > > distribution. Since this goes against the users wishes, I would be in > favor > > of creating a separate account, and giving back control over the pyflink > > account. > > >> > > >> My take on the raised points: > > >> 1.1) "apache-flink" > > >> 1.2) option 2 > > >> 2) Given that we only distribute python code there should be no reason > > to differentiate between scala versions. We should not be distributing > any > > java/scala code and/or modules to PyPi. Currently, I'm a bit confused > about > > this question and wonder what exactly we are trying to publish here. > > >> 3) The should be treated as any other source release; i.e., it needs a > > LICENSE and NOTICE file, signatures and a PMC vote. My suggestion would > be > > to make this part of our normal release process. There will be _one_ > source > > release on dist.apache.org encompassing everything, and a separate > python > > of focused source release that we push to PyPi. The LICENSE and NOTICE > > contained in the python source release must also be present in the source > > release of Flink; so basically the python source release is just the > > contents of flink-python module the maven pom.xml, with no other special > > sauce added during the release process. > > >> > > >> On 02/07/2019 05:42, jincheng sun wrote: > > >>> Hi all, > > >>> > > >>> With the effort of FLIP-38 [1], the Python Table API(without UDF > > support > > >>> for now) will be supported in the coming release-1.9. > > >>> As described in "Build PyFlink"[2], if users want to use the Python > > Table > > >>> API, they can manually install it using the command: > > >>> "cd flink-python && python3 setup.py sdist && pip install > > dist/*.tar.gz". > > >>> > > >>> This is non-trivial for users and it will be better if we can follow > > the > > >>> Python way to publish PyFlink to PyPI > > >>> which is a repository of software for the Python programming > language. > > Then > > >>> users can use the standard Python package > > >>> manager "pip" to install PyFlink: "pip install pyflink". So, there > are > > some > > >>> topic need to be discussed as follows: > > >>> > > >>> 1. How to publish PyFlink to PyPI > > >>> > > >>> 1.1 Project Name > > >>> We need to decide the project name of PyPI to use, for example, > > >>> apache-flink, pyflink, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Regarding to the name "pyflink", it has already been registered > by > > >>> @ueqt and there is already a package '1.0' released under this > project > > >>> which is based on flink-libraries/flink-python. > > >>> > > >>> @ueqt has kindly agreed to give this project back to the > > community. And > > >>> he has requested that the released package '1.0' should not be > removed > > as > > >>> it has already been used in their company. > > >>> > > >>> So we need to decide whether to use the name 'pyflink'? If yes, > > we > > >>> need to figure out how to tackle with the package '1.0' under this > > project. > > >>> > > >>> From the points of my view, the "pyflink" is better for our > > project > > >>> name and we can keep the release of 1.0, maybe more people want to > use. > > >>> > > >>> 1.2 PyPI account for release > > >>> We need also decide on which account to use to publish packages > > to PyPI. > > >>> > > >>> There are two permissions in PyPI: owner and maintainer: > > >>> > > >>> 1) The owner can upload releases, delete files, releases or the > > entire > > >>> project. > > >>> 2) The maintainer can also upload releases. However, they cannot > > delete > > >>> files, releases, or the project. > > >>> > > >>> So there are two options in my mind: > > >>> > > >>> 1) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as the owner share it > with > > all > > >>> the release managers and then release managers can publish the > package > > to > > >>> PyPI using this account. > > >>> 2) Create an account such as 'pyflink' as owner(only PMC can > > manage it) > > >>> and adds the release manager's account as maintainers of the project. > > >>> Release managers publish the package to PyPI using their own account. > > >>> > > >>> As I know, PySpark takes Option 1) and Apache Beam takes Option > > 2). > > >>> > > >>> From the points of my view, I prefer option 2) as it's pretty > > safer as > > >>> it eliminate the risk of deleting old releases occasionally and at > the > > same > > >>> time keeps the trace of who is operating. > > >>> > > >>> 2. How to handle Scala_2.11 and Scala_2.12 > > >>> > > >>> The PyFlink package bundles the jars in the package. As we know, > there > > are > > >>> two versions of jars for each module: one for Scala 2.11 and the > other > > for > > >>> Scala 2.12. So there will be two PyFlink packages theoretically. We > > need to > > >>> decide which one to publish to PyPI or both. If both packages will be > > >>> published to PyPI, we may need two projects, such as pyflink_211 and > > >>> pyflink_212 separately. Maybe more in the future such as pyflink_213. > > >>> > > >>> (BTW, I think we should bring up a discussion for dorp > Scala_2.11 > > in > > >>> Flink 1.10 release due to 2.13 is available in early June.) > > >>> > > >>> From the points of my view, for now, we can only release the > > scala_2.11 > > >>> version, due to scala_2.11 is our default version in Flink. > > >>> > > >>> 3. Legal problems of publishing to PyPI > > >>> > > >>> As @Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> pointed out in > > FLINK-13011[3], > > >>> publishing PyFlink to PyPI means that we will publish binaries to a > > >>> distribution channel not owned by Apache. We need to figure out if > > there > > >>> are legal problems. From my point of view, there are no problems as a > > few > > >>> Apache projects such as Spark, Beam, etc have already done it. > Frankly > > >>> speaking, I am not familiar with this problem, welcome any feedback > on > > this > > >>> if somebody is more family with this. > > >>> > > >>> Great thanks to @ueqt for willing to dedicate PyPI's project name > > `pyflink` > > >>> to the Apache Flink community!!! > > >>> Great thanks to @Dian for the offline effort!!! > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> Jincheng > > >>> > > >>> [1] > > >>> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-38%3A+Python+Table+API > > >>> [2] > > >>> > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/flinkDev/building.html#build-pyflink > > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-13011 > > >>> > > > > > > > >
