Repository navigation
Community feedback handling #4380
Description
Dozens of bug reports and feature requests (e.g. #4114) got closed recently with this text:
Thanks for using SageMaker and taking the time to suggest ways to improve SageMaker Python SDK. We have added your feature request it to our backlog of feature requests and may consider putting it into future SDK versions. I will go ahead and close the issue now, please let me know if you have any more feedback. Let me know if you have any other questions.
While I appreciate it that you put this issue in the internal backlog, closing it “as completed” in GitHub terminology seems not a good description or matching open-source conventions here at GitHub. A transparent backlog or roadmap for Sagemaker would be great. Other AWS services such as container services habe public roadmaps, which are highly appreciated by the AWS developer community, as the number of stars in the repo show.
It also seems PRs from non-AWS employees are not reviewed, even trivial ones. While I can understand that you may want AWS employees to make contributions only, it would be nice if people who put in time to contribute their time would be explicitly handled or the README or CONTRIBUTING would signal that non-AWS employees contributions are not welcome.
A few issues I opened got fixed but not referenced in the PR or closed with the PR, so I found out by accident that they have been resolved, e.g. a docker dependency issue.
To me, that's not what a successful open-source engagement of a leading ML toolsuite should look like. Competitors of AWS such as Databricks proactively manage their issues, let their users take part in feature prioritisation and bug fixes, have transparent roadmaps and integrated external contributors etc. My org has significant spending on AWS usage and also for business support, to which I regularly submit links of GitHub issues I face, 90% were not resolved (after re-classifying from bug report to feature, IMO at least some times inappropriate) and are now transferred into some intransparent internal backlog. So that is not a very pleasant experience. I wonder if other users' experience is similar to mine.
Activity
Ce11an commentedon Jan 19, 2024
I completely agree. Greater transparency is necessary. I sense that this repository functions more as "source available" rather than truly open source.
lorenzwalthert commentedon May 3, 2024
cc @ShwetaSingh801.
lorenzwalthert commentedon Jul 15, 2024
lorenzwalthert commentedon Oct 11, 2025
lorenzwalthert commentedon Oct 11, 2025
Also, it took AWS nearly a year to resolve a key dependency bump (#4882), which accumulated 50+ upvotes and multiple support cases, creating major incompatibilities with other software and vulnerabilities to multiple CVE. An example of poor community feedback handling.
des1-gner commentedon Oct 14, 2025
As I mentioned unfortunately I am not sure about the state of https://github.com/aws/amazon-sagemaker-feedback, I have asked a few people... hoping for a reply here @poojak13
Agree that transparency, and community engagement are really important - it's something that we could 100% be doing better here.
This is probably the best thing to do at the moment (creating support tickets / engaging AWS contacts). If you have Premium Support, and an Account Manager or TAM they can add proposed feature requests directly into the system, there should also be a system where if / when the feature request is completed (it is dependent on feasibility / community demand) that your Account Manager or TAM will be informed and you will be re-engaged upon completion. They also have further insight into the roadmap into said issues unlike Support.
des1-gner commentedon Oct 14, 2025
I made this: aws/amazon-sagemaker-feedback#216 to see, hoping for a response.
mohamedzeidan2021 commentedon Sep 1, 2026
This issue is being closed as part of sunsetting SageMaker Python SDK 2.x.
SDK 2.x is now in maintenance mode, and we are no longer actively triaging or fixing 2.x bugs. All new development is on SDK 3.x, a modular redesign with unified interfaces, separate namespaces, and standardized core functionality.
We'd encourage you to move to 3.x, where this area has been substantially reworked and many long-standing 2.x issues no longer apply. To get started:
pip install sagemaker(3.x is the default)If you try 3.x and still hit this problem there, change this issue's version tag from 2.x to 3.x and reopen it, and we'll take a look.
If you need further help with 2.x specifically, please reach out to AWS Support: https://console.aws.amazon.com/support/home
lorenzwalthert commentedon Sep 2, 2026
Another example of poor community handling... The issue has nothing to do with version 2 or 3 of SageMaker. I can't even re-open it. Keep upvoting 😀
des1-gner commentedon Sep 3, 2026
@mohamedzeidan2021
lorenzwalthert commentedon Sep 5, 2026