You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@beam.apache.org by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> on 2017/01/27 20:55:35 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
* JIRA release notes [1],
* the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
[2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
* all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
* source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
* website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
reference manual [6].
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
Thanks,
JB
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12338859
[2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
[3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
[4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1010/
[5]
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
[6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
It's normal, and the same in the previous release: it will be fixed when
the release will be complete.
Regards
JB
On 01/30/2017 11:19 AM, Alexey Demin wrote:
> Hi
>
> all good but now branch release-0.5.0 can't be build because last commit
> not reversed files
>
> sdks/java/maven-archetypes/examples-java8/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
> sdks/java/maven-archetypes/examples/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
> sdks/java/maven-archetypes/starter/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
> sdks/java/maven-archetypes/starter/src/test/resources/projects/basic/reference/pom.xml
>
> from <beam.version>0.5.0</beam.version> to
> <beam.version>0.5.0-SNAPSHOT</beam.version>
>
> as result mvn can't find necessary artifacts.
>
> Thanks,
> Alexey
>
>
> 2017-01-30 14:01 GMT+04:00 Isma�l Mej�a <ie...@gmail.com>:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> - verified signatures + checksums
>> - run mvn clean verify -Prelease, all artifacts build and the tests run
>> smoothly
>>
>> Great to see a shorter release cycle, the improvements and the new IOs.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
>>> as follows:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>
>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>>>
>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>> reference manual [6].
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> JB
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>> orgapachebeam-1010/
>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Alexey Demin <di...@gmail.com>.
Hi
all good but now branch release-0.5.0 can't be build because last commit
not reversed files
sdks/java/maven-archetypes/examples-java8/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
sdks/java/maven-archetypes/examples/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
sdks/java/maven-archetypes/starter/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
sdks/java/maven-archetypes/starter/src/test/resources/projects/basic/reference/pom.xml
from <beam.version>0.5.0</beam.version> to
<beam.version>0.5.0-SNAPSHOT</beam.version>
as result mvn can't find necessary artifacts.
Thanks,
Alexey
2017-01-30 14:01 GMT+04:00 Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> - verified signatures + checksums
> - run mvn clean verify -Prelease, all artifacts build and the tests run
> smoothly
>
> Great to see a shorter release cycle, the improvements and the new IOs.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
> > as follows:
> >
> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
> >
> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> >
> > * JIRA release notes [1],
> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> > [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> > * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
> > * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> > reference manual [6].
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> > approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > JB
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> > ctId=12319527&version=12338859
> > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
> > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> > [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapachebeam-1010/
> > [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
> > efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
> > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
- verified signatures + checksums
- run mvn clean verify -Prelease, all artifacts build and the tests run
smoothly
Great to see a shorter release cycle, the improvements and the new IOs.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
> as follows:
>
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> reference manual [6].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> JB
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1010/
> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>
Re: [CANCEL][VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
It sounds good. Let's do that.
Regards
JB
On 02/02/2017 12:12 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> We should go with the option Kenn proposed instead of a "hard revert".
>
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 at 10:55 Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Due to the regression in the Flink runner (and potentially other
>> runners), I cancel RC#1.
>>
>> The fixes/reverts will be done on the 0.5.0 release branch and a RC#2
>> will be done.
>>
>> Sorry about that.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 01/27/2017 09:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
>>> as follows:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>
>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>>>
>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>> reference manual [6].
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> JB
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>
>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> [4]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1010/
>>> [5]
>>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>
>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [CANCEL][VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>.
We should go with the option Kenn proposed instead of a "hard revert".
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 at 10:55 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Due to the regression in the Flink runner (and potentially other
> runners), I cancel RC#1.
>
> The fixes/reverts will be done on the 0.5.0 release branch and a RC#2
> will be done.
>
> Sorry about that.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 01/27/2017 09:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
> > as follows:
> >
> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
> >
> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> >
> > * JIRA release notes [1],
> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> > [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> > * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
> > * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> > reference manual [6].
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> > approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > JB
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12338859
> >
> > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
> > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> > [4]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1010/
> > [5]
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
> >
> > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
[CANCEL][VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi everyone,
Due to the regression in the Flink runner (and potentially other
runners), I cancel RC#1.
The fixes/reverts will be done on the 0.5.0 release branch and a RC#2
will be done.
Sorry about that.
Regards
JB
On 01/27/2017 09:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
> as follows:
>
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> reference manual [6].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> JB
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12338859
>
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1010/
> [5]
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>
> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On 01/27/2017 09:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
> as follows:
>
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> reference manual [6].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> JB
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12338859
>
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1010/
> [5]
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>
> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Yes, I just wanted formal feedback (now we have 3 -1, but we had only 1
this morning) ;)
On 02/02/2017 10:47 AM, Dan Halperin wrote:
> From the release guide, I was under the impression that the release manager
> is free to cancel once an issue is discovered. Canceling is not a release,
> so should not require a specific number of -1s. See [0]
>
> That said, -1 to 0.5.0-RC1 because of the regression in Flink and perhaps
> other runners.
>
> [0]
> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/index.html#vote-on-the-release-candidate
> "If there are any issues found in the release candidate, reply on the vote
> thread to cancel the vote. There\u2019s no need to wait 72 hours."
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>> agree.
>>
>> I'm waiting for other -1 to formally cancel the vote.
>>
>> Thanks !
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 02/02/2017 04:11 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>
>>> Unless there is a strenuous objection, I think we should roll forwards
>>> with
>>> a surgical "revert" of just the relevant logic, as in
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1901
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The revert is actually quite complex internally. I think there might be a
>>>> ~5 line roll forward, since the lost functionality was pretty trivial.
>>>> I'll
>>>> give it a quick try, as it will be worth it if it works out.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I opened this PR with three revert commits:
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1883
>>>>>
>>>>> I also started PostCommit runs for this:
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>>> _MavenInstall/2486/
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>>> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1493/
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>>> _RunnableOnService_Spark/803/
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>>> _RunnableOnService_Apex/
>>>>> (still
>>>>> waiting in queue as of writing)
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>>> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/
>>>>> (still
>>>>> waiting in queue as of writing)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the MavenInstall hooks fail because the (Google-internal)
>>>>> Dataflow
>>>>> Runner Harness doesn't work with the changed code, though I'm only
>>>>> guessing
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 21:26 Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, since it's a regression. Let's hope that the transitive closure
>>>>> of
>>>>> "revert those two commits" doesn't get to large.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll checkout the release-0.5.0 branch and see where we get with
>>>>> reverting.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 19:28 Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. -1 and let's do the smartest thing to undo the regression.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those two commits are not sufficient to restore late data dropping.
>>>>> You'll
>>>>> also need to revert the switch of the Flink runner to use new DoFn,
>>>>> maybe
>>>>> more.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
>>>>>> and we should cancel the release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the
>>>>>>
>>>>> LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
>>>>>
>>>>>> introduced a regression. So, I would cancel this vote and revert the
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> commits for RC2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> like
>>>>>
>>>>>> to ship a release with such a functional regression....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fair enough. Let's do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks !
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> since
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future.
>>>>>>>>> Plus,
>>>>>>>>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> late
>>>>>
>>>>>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing
>>>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>>>> (There's more besides dropping.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Aljoscha,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the
>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>
>>>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BEAM-1346.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>>>>>>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInsta
>>>>>>>>>>>> ll/6870/
>>>>>>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
>>>>>>>>>>>> all/2474/
>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Apex/336/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Flink/1470/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Spark/786/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dhalperi@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RC1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fern�ndez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * license headers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> git
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tags
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76
>>>>>>>>>>>> [3],
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4],
>>>>>
>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>
>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>
>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>
>>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>>
>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
-1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On 02/02/2017 10:47 AM, Dan Halperin wrote:
> From the release guide, I was under the impression that the release manager
> is free to cancel once an issue is discovered. Canceling is not a release,
> so should not require a specific number of -1s. See [0]
>
> That said, -1 to 0.5.0-RC1 because of the regression in Flink and perhaps
> other runners.
>
> [0]
> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/index.html#vote-on-the-release-candidate
> "If there are any issues found in the release candidate, reply on the vote
> thread to cancel the vote. There\u2019s no need to wait 72 hours."
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>> agree.
>>
>> I'm waiting for other -1 to formally cancel the vote.
>>
>> Thanks !
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 02/02/2017 04:11 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>
>>> Unless there is a strenuous objection, I think we should roll forwards
>>> with
>>> a surgical "revert" of just the relevant logic, as in
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1901
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The revert is actually quite complex internally. I think there might be a
>>>> ~5 line roll forward, since the lost functionality was pretty trivial.
>>>> I'll
>>>> give it a quick try, as it will be worth it if it works out.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I opened this PR with three revert commits:
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1883
>>>>>
>>>>> I also started PostCommit runs for this:
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>>> _MavenInstall/2486/
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>>> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1493/
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>>> _RunnableOnService_Spark/803/
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>>> _RunnableOnService_Apex/
>>>>> (still
>>>>> waiting in queue as of writing)
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>>> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/
>>>>> (still
>>>>> waiting in queue as of writing)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the MavenInstall hooks fail because the (Google-internal)
>>>>> Dataflow
>>>>> Runner Harness doesn't work with the changed code, though I'm only
>>>>> guessing
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 21:26 Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, since it's a regression. Let's hope that the transitive closure
>>>>> of
>>>>> "revert those two commits" doesn't get to large.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll checkout the release-0.5.0 branch and see where we get with
>>>>> reverting.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 19:28 Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. -1 and let's do the smartest thing to undo the regression.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those two commits are not sufficient to restore late data dropping.
>>>>> You'll
>>>>> also need to revert the switch of the Flink runner to use new DoFn,
>>>>> maybe
>>>>> more.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
>>>>>> and we should cancel the release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the
>>>>>>
>>>>> LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
>>>>>
>>>>>> introduced a regression. So, I would cancel this vote and revert the
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> commits for RC2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> like
>>>>>
>>>>>> to ship a release with such a functional regression....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fair enough. Let's do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks !
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> since
>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future.
>>>>>>>>> Plus,
>>>>>>>>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> late
>>>>>
>>>>>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing
>>>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>>>> (There's more besides dropping.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Aljoscha,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the
>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker
>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>
>>>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BEAM-1346.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>>>>>>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInsta
>>>>>>>>>>>> ll/6870/
>>>>>>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
>>>>>>>>>>>> all/2474/
>>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Apex/336/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Flink/1470/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Spark/786/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dhalperi@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RC1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fern�ndez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * license headers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> git
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tags
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76
>>>>>>>>>>>> [3],
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4],
>>>>>
>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>
>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>
>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>
>>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>>
>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Dan Halperin <dh...@google.com.INVALID>.
From the release guide, I was under the impression that the release manager
is free to cancel once an issue is discovered. Canceling is not a release,
so should not require a specific number of -1s. See [0]
That said, -1 to 0.5.0-RC1 because of the regression in Flink and perhaps
other runners.
[0]
https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/index.html#vote-on-the-release-candidate
"If there are any issues found in the release candidate, reply on the vote
thread to cancel the vote. There’s no need to wait 72 hours."
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> agree.
>
> I'm waiting for other -1 to formally cancel the vote.
>
> Thanks !
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 02/02/2017 04:11 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>
>> Unless there is a strenuous objection, I think we should roll forwards
>> with
>> a surgical "revert" of just the relevant logic, as in
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1901
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> The revert is actually quite complex internally. I think there might be a
>>> ~5 line roll forward, since the lost functionality was pretty trivial.
>>> I'll
>>> give it a quick try, as it will be worth it if it works out.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I opened this PR with three revert commits:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1883
>>>>
>>>> I also started PostCommit runs for this:
>>>> -
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>> _MavenInstall/2486/
>>>> -
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1493/
>>>> -
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>> _RunnableOnService_Spark/803/
>>>> -
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>> _RunnableOnService_Apex/
>>>> (still
>>>> waiting in queue as of writing)
>>>> -
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/
>>>> (still
>>>> waiting in queue as of writing)
>>>>
>>>> I think the MavenInstall hooks fail because the (Google-internal)
>>>> Dataflow
>>>> Runner Harness doesn't work with the changed code, though I'm only
>>>> guessing
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 21:26 Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, since it's a regression. Let's hope that the transitive closure
>>>> of
>>>> "revert those two commits" doesn't get to large.
>>>>
>>>> I'll checkout the release-0.5.0 branch and see where we get with
>>>> reverting.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 19:28 Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree. -1 and let's do the smartest thing to undo the regression.
>>>>
>>>> Those two commits are not sufficient to restore late data dropping.
>>>> You'll
>>>> also need to revert the switch of the Flink runner to use new DoFn,
>>>> maybe
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
>>>>> and we should cancel the release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the
>>>>>
>>>> LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
>>>>
>>>>> introduced a regression. So, I would cancel this vote and revert the
>>>>> two
>>>>> commits for RC2.
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not
>>>>>>
>>>>> like
>>>>
>>>>> to ship a release with such a functional regression....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>
>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fair enough. Let's do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> since
>>>>
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future.
>>>>>>>> Plus,
>>>>>>>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> late
>>>>
>>>>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing
>>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>>> (There's more besides dropping.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Aljoscha,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (which
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the
>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>
>>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BEAM-1346.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>>>>>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInsta
>>>>>>>>>>> ll/6870/
>>>>>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
>>>>>>>>>>> all/2474/
>>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Apex/336/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Flink/1470/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Spark/786/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dhalperi@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RC1
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * license headers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> git
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tags
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76
>>>>>>>>>>> [3],
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [4],
>>>>
>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>
>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>
>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>
>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>
>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Ken,
agree.
I'm waiting for other -1 to formally cancel the vote.
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On 02/02/2017 04:11 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> Unless there is a strenuous objection, I think we should roll forwards with
> a surgical "revert" of just the relevant logic, as in
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1901
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> The revert is actually quite complex internally. I think there might be a
>> ~5 line roll forward, since the lost functionality was pretty trivial. I'll
>> give it a quick try, as it will be worth it if it works out.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I opened this PR with three revert commits:
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1883
>>>
>>> I also started PostCommit runs for this:
>>> -
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>> _MavenInstall/2486/
>>> -
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1493/
>>> -
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>> _RunnableOnService_Spark/803/
>>> -
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>> _RunnableOnService_Apex/
>>> (still
>>> waiting in queue as of writing)
>>> -
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/
>>> (still
>>> waiting in queue as of writing)
>>>
>>> I think the MavenInstall hooks fail because the (Google-internal) Dataflow
>>> Runner Harness doesn't work with the changed code, though I'm only
>>> guessing
>>> here.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 21:26 Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed, since it's a regression. Let's hope that the transitive closure of
>>> "revert those two commits" doesn't get to large.
>>>
>>> I'll checkout the release-0.5.0 branch and see where we get with
>>> reverting.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 19:28 Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree. -1 and let's do the smartest thing to undo the regression.
>>>
>>> Those two commits are not sufficient to restore late data dropping. You'll
>>> also need to revert the switch of the Flink runner to use new DoFn, maybe
>>> more.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
>>>> and we should cancel the release.
>>>>
>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the
>>> LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
>>>> introduced a regression. So, I would cancel this vote and revert the two
>>>> commits for RC2.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not
>>> like
>>>>> to ship a release with such a functional regression....
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. Let's do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially
>>> since
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future.
>>>>>>> Plus,
>>>>>>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper
>>> late
>>>>>>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing
>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>> (There's more besides dropping.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Aljoscha,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
>>> (which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because
>>> we
>>>>>>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on
>>> BEAM-1346.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>>>>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInsta
>>>>>>>>>> ll/6870/
>>>>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
>>>>>>>>>> all/2474/
>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nService_Apex/336/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nService_Flink/1470/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nService_Spark/786/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dhalperi@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RC1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fern�ndez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * license headers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> git
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tags
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>>> [4],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the
>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira
>>> /secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/
>>> content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/
>>> repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.INVALID>.
Unless there is a strenuous objection, I think we should roll forwards with
a surgical "revert" of just the relevant logic, as in
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1901
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> wrote:
> The revert is actually quite complex internally. I think there might be a
> ~5 line roll forward, since the lost functionality was pretty trivial. I'll
> give it a quick try, as it will be worth it if it works out.
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I opened this PR with three revert commits:
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1883
>>
>> I also started PostCommit runs for this:
>> -
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>> _MavenInstall/2486/
>> -
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1493/
>> -
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>> _RunnableOnService_Spark/803/
>> -
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>> _RunnableOnService_Apex/
>> (still
>> waiting in queue as of writing)
>> -
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/
>> (still
>> waiting in queue as of writing)
>>
>> I think the MavenInstall hooks fail because the (Google-internal) Dataflow
>> Runner Harness doesn't work with the changed code, though I'm only
>> guessing
>> here.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 21:26 Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, since it's a regression. Let's hope that the transitive closure of
>> "revert those two commits" doesn't get to large.
>>
>> I'll checkout the release-0.5.0 branch and see where we get with
>> reverting.
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 19:28 Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree. -1 and let's do the smartest thing to undo the regression.
>>
>> Those two commits are not sufficient to restore late data dropping. You'll
>> also need to revert the switch of the Flink runner to use new DoFn, maybe
>> more.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
>> > and we should cancel the release.
>> >
>> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the
>> LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
>> > introduced a regression. So, I would cancel this vote and revert the two
>> > commits for RC2.
>> >
>> > WDYT ?
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > JB
>> >
>> >
>> > On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
>> >
>> >> Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not
>> like
>> >> to ship a release with such a functional regression....
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Fair enough. Let's do that.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks !
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> JB
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially
>> since
>> >>>> we
>> >>>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future.
>> >>>> Plus,
>> >>>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper
>> late
>> >>>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing
>> >>>> features.
>> >>>> (There's more besides dropping.)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Aljoscha,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards
>> >>>>> JB
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
>> (which
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> got
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think
>> >>>>>> that
>> >>>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> place.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because
>> we
>> >>>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on
>> BEAM-1346.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>> >>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInsta
>> >>>>>>> ll/6870/
>> >>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
>> >>>>>>> all/2474/
>> >>>>>>> *
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> nService_Apex/336/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> nService_Flink/1470/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> nService_Spark/786/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dhalperi@apache.org
>> >
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346
>> >>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> RC1
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> >>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> release
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>> JB
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>> >>>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>> >>>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>> >>>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>> >>>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>> >>>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>> >>>>>>>>>> * license headers
>> >>>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>> >>>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since
>> >>>>>>>>>> git
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> tags
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> can be changed.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> anymore,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> version
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> as follows:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>> >>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> comments)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> includes:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>> >>>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>> [4],
>> >>>>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>> >>>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the
>> API
>> >>>>>>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> majority
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> JB
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira
>> /secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>> >>>>>>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>> >>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>> >>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>> >>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/
>> content/repositories/orgapache
>> >>>>>>>>>>> beam-1010/
>> >>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/
>> repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>> >>>>>>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>> >>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> >>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> >>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> >>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> >>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> >>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> >>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> > --
>> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> > jbonofre@apache.org
>> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.INVALID>.
The revert is actually quite complex internally. I think there might be a
~5 line roll forward, since the lost functionality was pretty trivial. I'll
give it a quick try, as it will be worth it if it works out.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I opened this PR with three revert commits:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1883
>
> I also started PostCommit runs for this:
> -
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_
> Java_MavenInstall/2486/
> -
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_
> Java_RunnableOnService_Flink/1493/
> -
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_
> Java_RunnableOnService_Spark/803/
> -
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_
> Java_RunnableOnService_Apex/
> (still
> waiting in queue as of writing)
> -
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_
> Java_RunnableOnService_Dataflow/
> (still
> waiting in queue as of writing)
>
> I think the MavenInstall hooks fail because the (Google-internal) Dataflow
> Runner Harness doesn't work with the changed code, though I'm only guessing
> here.
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 21:26 Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Agreed, since it's a regression. Let's hope that the transitive closure of
> "revert those two commits" doesn't get to large.
>
> I'll checkout the release-0.5.0 branch and see where we get with reverting.
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 19:28 Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> I agree. -1 and let's do the smartest thing to undo the regression.
>
> Those two commits are not sufficient to restore late data dropping. You'll
> also need to revert the switch of the Flink runner to use new DoFn, maybe
> more.
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
> > and we should cancel the release.
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the
> LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
> > introduced a regression. So, I would cancel this vote and revert the two
> > commits for RC2.
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >
> > On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
> >
> >> Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not
> like
> >> to ship a release with such a functional regression....
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Fair enough. Let's do that.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks !
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially since
> >>>> we
> >>>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future.
> >>>> Plus,
> >>>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper
> late
> >>>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing
> >>>> features.
> >>>> (There's more besides dropping.)
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Aljoscha,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> JB
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
> (which
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> got
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> place.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because
> we
> >>>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
> >>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInsta
> >>>>>>> ll/6870/
> >>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
> >>>>>>> all/2474/
> >>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> nService_Apex/336/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> nService_Flink/1470/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> nService_Spark/786/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> RC1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
> >>>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
> >>>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
> >>>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
> >>>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
> >>>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
> >>>>>>>>>> * license headers
> >>>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
> >>>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since
> >>>>>>>>>> git
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> tags
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> can be changed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> anymore,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
> >>>>>>>>>>> version
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> as follows:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> >>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> comments)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> includes:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
> >>>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
> [4],
> >>>>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
> >>>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the
> API
> >>>>>>>>>>> reference manual [6].
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> majority
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> proje
> >>>>>>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
> >>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
> >>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> >>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/
> content/repositories/orgapache
> >>>>>>>>>>> beam-1010/
> >>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/
> repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
> >>>>>>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
> >>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> >>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
> >>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> >>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >>> jbonofre@apache.org
> >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > jbonofre@apache.org
> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>.
I opened this PR with three revert commits:
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1883
I also started PostCommit runs for this:
-
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInstall/2486/
-
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Flink/1493/
-
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Spark/803/
-
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Apex/
(still
waiting in queue as of writing)
-
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Dataflow/
(still
waiting in queue as of writing)
I think the MavenInstall hooks fail because the (Google-internal) Dataflow
Runner Harness doesn't work with the changed code, though I'm only guessing
here.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 21:26 Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org> wrote:
Agreed, since it's a regression. Let's hope that the transitive closure of
"revert those two commits" doesn't get to large.
I'll checkout the release-0.5.0 branch and see where we get with reverting.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 19:28 Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
I agree. -1 and let's do the smartest thing to undo the regression.
Those two commits are not sufficient to restore late data dropping. You'll
also need to revert the switch of the Flink runner to use new DoFn, maybe
more.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
> and we should cancel the release.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
> introduced a regression. So, I would cancel this vote and revert the two
> commits for RC2.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
>
>> Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not like
>> to ship a release with such a functional regression....
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Fair enough. Let's do that.
>>>
>>> Thanks !
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially since
>>>> we
>>>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future.
>>>> Plus,
>>>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper late
>>>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing
>>>> features.
>>>> (There's more besides dropping.)
>>>>
>>>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Aljoscha,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
(which
>>>>>>
>>>>>> got
>>>>>
>>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first
>>>>>>
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because
we
>>>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInsta
>>>>>>> ll/6870/
>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
>>>>>>> all/2474/
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Apex/336/
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Flink/1470/
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Spark/786/
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RC1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>>>>> * license headers
>>>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since
>>>>>>>>>> git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> tags
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> comments)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> includes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
[4],
>>>>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the
API
>>>>>>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>>>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>>>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>.
Agreed, since it's a regression. Let's hope that the transitive closure of
"revert those two commits" doesn't get to large.
I'll checkout the release-0.5.0 branch and see where we get with reverting.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 19:28 Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
I agree. -1 and let's do the smartest thing to undo the regression.
Those two commits are not sufficient to restore late data dropping. You'll
also need to revert the switch of the Flink runner to use new DoFn, maybe
more.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
> and we should cancel the release.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
> introduced a regression. So, I would cancel this vote and revert the two
> commits for RC2.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
>
>> Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not like
>> to ship a release with such a functional regression....
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Fair enough. Let's do that.
>>>
>>> Thanks !
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially since
>>>> we
>>>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future.
>>>> Plus,
>>>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper late
>>>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing
>>>> features.
>>>> (There's more besides dropping.)
>>>>
>>>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Aljoscha,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
(which
>>>>>>
>>>>>> got
>>>>>
>>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first
>>>>>>
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because
we
>>>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInsta
>>>>>>> ll/6870/
>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
>>>>>>> all/2474/
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Apex/336/
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Flink/1470/
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Spark/786/
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RC1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>>>>> * license headers
>>>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since
>>>>>>>>>> git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> tags
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> comments)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> includes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
[4],
>>>>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the
API
>>>>>>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>>>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>>>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.INVALID>.
I agree. -1 and let's do the smartest thing to undo the regression.
Those two commits are not sufficient to restore late data dropping. You'll
also need to revert the switch of the Flink runner to use new DoFn, maybe
more.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
> and we should cancel the release.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
> introduced a regression. So, I would cancel this vote and revert the two
> commits for RC2.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
>
>> Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not like
>> to ship a release with such a functional regression....
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Fair enough. Let's do that.
>>>
>>> Thanks !
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially since
>>>> we
>>>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future.
>>>> Plus,
>>>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper late
>>>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing
>>>> features.
>>>> (There's more besides dropping.)
>>>>
>>>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Aljoscha,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner (which
>>>>>>
>>>>>> got
>>>>>
>>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first
>>>>>>
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because we
>>>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInsta
>>>>>>> ll/6870/
>>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
>>>>>>> all/2474/
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Apex/336/
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Flink/1470/
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Spark/786/
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RC1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>>>>> * license headers
>>>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since
>>>>>>>>>> git
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> tags
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> comments)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> includes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>>>>>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>>>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>>>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
and we should cancel the release.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the
LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner introduced a regression. So, I would cancel
this vote and revert the two commits for RC2.
WDYT ?
Regards
JB
On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
> Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not like
> to ship a release with such a functional regression....
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Fair enough. Let's do that.
>>
>> Thanks !
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially since we
>>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future. Plus,
>>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper late
>>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing features.
>>> (There's more besides dropping.)
>>>
>>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Aljoscha,
>>>>
>>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner (which
>>>>>
>>>> got
>>>>
>>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think that
>>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first
>>>>>
>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>>>>>
>>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because we
>>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/6870/
>>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
>>>>>> all/2474/
>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>> nService_Apex/336/
>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>> nService_Flink/1470/
>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>> nService_Spark/786/
>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346 for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> RC1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fern�ndez wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>>>> * license headers
>>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since git
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tags
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>
>>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> comments)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> includes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>>>>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Dan Halperin <dh...@google.com.INVALID>.
Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not like
to ship a release with such a functional regression....
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Fair enough. Let's do that.
>
> Thanks !
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially since we
>> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future. Plus,
>> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper late
>> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing features.
>> (There's more besides dropping.)
>>
>> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Aljoscha,
>>>
>>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>>
>>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner (which
>>>>
>>> got
>>>
>>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think that
>>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first
>>>>
>>> place.
>>>
>>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>>>>
>>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because we
>>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
>>>>>
>>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/6870/
>>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
>>>>> all/2474/
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>> nService_Apex/336/
>>>
>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>> nService_Flink/1470/
>>>
>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>> nService_Spark/786/
>>>
>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
>>> nService_Dataflow/2130/
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346 for
>>>>>>
>>>>> RC1
>>>>>
>>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> release
>>>>>
>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>>> * license headers
>>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since git
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tags
>>>>>
>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>
>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> comments)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> includes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>>>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>
>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Fair enough. Let's do that.
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially since we
> have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future. Plus,
> if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper late
> data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing features.
> (There's more besides dropping.)
>
> I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Aljoscha,
>>
>> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>
>>> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner (which
>> got
>>> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think that
>>> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first
>> place.
>>> (Not sure about this last part.)
>>>
>>> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because we
>>> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
>>>>
>>>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/6870/
>>>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInstall/2474/
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Apex/336/
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Flink/1470/
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Spark/786/
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Dataflow/2130/
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346 for
>>>> RC1
>>>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb@nanthrax.net
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>>>> release
>>>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fern�ndez wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>> * license headers
>>>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since git
>>>> tags
>>>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
>> anymore,
>>>>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>> comments)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>> includes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>> majority
>>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>.
I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially since we
have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future. Plus,
if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper late
data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing features.
(There's more besides dropping.)
I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> Hi Aljoscha,
>
> so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
> >
> > Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner (which
> got
> > "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think that
> > the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first
> place.
> > (Not sure about this last part.)
> >
> > As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because we
> > don't have the correct output in some cases.
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
> >>
> >> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
> >> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/6870/
> >> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInstall/2474/
> >> *
> >>
> >>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Apex/336/
> >> *
> >>
> >>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Flink/1470/
> >> *
> >>
> >>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Spark/786/
> >> *
> >>
> >>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Dataflow/2130/
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346 for
> >> RC1
> >>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
> >> release
> >>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> JB
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1 (non-binding)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
> >>>>> * signatures and digests
> >>>>> * source releases file layouts
> >>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
> >>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
> >>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
> >>>>> * license headers
> >>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
> >>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since git
> >> tags
> >>>>> can be changed.
> >>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
> anymore,
> >>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >> jb@nanthrax.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
> >>> 0.5.0
> >>>>>> as follows:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> >>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
> comments)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> >> includes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
> >>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
> >> dist.apache.org
> >>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
> >>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> >>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
> >>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> >>>>>> reference manual [6].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> >> majority
> >>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> >>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
> >>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
> >>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> >>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
> >>>>>> beam-1010/
> >>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
> >>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
> >>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >>>> jbonofre@apache.org
> >>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> >>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Aljoscha,
so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
Regards
JB
On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner (which got
> "disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think that
> the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first place.
> (Not sure about this last part.)
>
> As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because we
> don't have the correct output in some cases.
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
>>
>> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/6870/
>> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInstall/2474/
>> *
>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Apex/336/
>> *
>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Flink/1470/
>> *
>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Spark/786/
>> *
>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Dataflow/2130/
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346 for
>> RC1
>>> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
>> release
>>>> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fern�ndez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>>>
>>>>> So far I've successfully checked:
>>>>> * signatures and digests
>>>>> * source releases file layouts
>>>>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>>>>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>>>>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>> * license headers
>>>>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>>>>
>>>>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>>>>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since git
>> tags
>>>>> can be changed.
>>>>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role anymore,
>>>>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <
>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>> 0.5.0
>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>> includes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>> dist.apache.org
>>>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>>>>> reference manual [6].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>> majority
>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>> beam-1010/
>>>>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>>>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>.
It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner (which got
"disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think that
the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the first place.
(Not sure about this last part.)
As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker because we
don't have the correct output in some cases.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
>
> A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/6870/
> * https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInstall/2474/
> *
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Apex/336/
> *
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Flink/1470/
> *
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Spark/786/
> *
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Dataflow/2130/
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346 for
> RC1
> > and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
> release
> > > guide (it was a copy/paste).
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 (non-binding)
> > >>
> > >> So far I've successfully checked:
> > >> * signatures and digests
> > >> * source releases file layouts
> > >> * matched git tags and commit ids
> > >> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
> > >> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
> > >> * license headers
> > >> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
> > >>
> > >> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
> > >> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since git
> tags
> > >> can be changed.
> > >> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role anymore,
> > >> you're a PMC now ;-)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> jb@nanthrax.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >>>
> > >>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
> > 0.5.0
> > >>> as follows:
> > >>>
> > >>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> > >>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
> > >>>
> > >>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> includes:
> > >>>
> > >>> * JIRA release notes [1],
> > >>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
> dist.apache.org
> > >>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
> > >>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> > >>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
> > >>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> > >>> reference manual [6].
> > >>>
> > >>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> majority
> > >>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> JB
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> > >>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
> > >>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
> > >>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> > >>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
> > >>> beam-1010/
> > >>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
> > >>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
> > >>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > --
> > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > > jbonofre@apache.org
> > > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org>.
It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on BEAM-1346.
A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
* https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/6870/
* https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInstall/2474/
*
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Apex/336/
*
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Flink/1470/
*
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Spark/786/
*
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Dataflow/2130/
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346 for RC1
> and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the release
> > guide (it was a copy/paste).
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >
> > On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (non-binding)
> >>
> >> So far I've successfully checked:
> >> * signatures and digests
> >> * source releases file layouts
> >> * matched git tags and commit ids
> >> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
> >> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
> >> * license headers
> >> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
> >>
> >> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
> >> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since git tags
> >> can be changed.
> >> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role anymore,
> >> you're a PMC now ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
> 0.5.0
> >>> as follows:
> >>>
> >>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> >>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
> >>>
> >>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> >>>
> >>> * JIRA release notes [1],
> >>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> >>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
> >>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> >>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
> >>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> >>> reference manual [6].
> >>>
> >>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> >>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> >>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
> >>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
> >>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> >>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
> >>> beam-1010/
> >>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
> >>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
> >>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > jbonofre@apache.org
> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Dan Halperin <dh...@apache.org>.
I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346 for RC1
and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the release
> guide (it was a copy/paste).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> So far I've successfully checked:
>> * signatures and digests
>> * source releases file layouts
>> * matched git tags and commit ids
>> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
>> * license headers
>> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>>
>> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
>> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since git tags
>> can be changed.
>> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role anymore,
>> you're a PMC now ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
>>> as follows:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>
>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>>>
>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>> reference manual [6].
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> JB
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>> beam-1010/
>>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the release
guide (it was a copy/paste).
Regards
JB
On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fern�ndez wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> So far I've successfully checked:
> * signatures and digests
> * source releases file layouts
> * matched git tags and commit ids
> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
> * license headers
> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>
> Two minor comments that do not block the release:
> * Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since git tags
> can be changed.
> * Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role anymore,
> you're a PMC now ;-)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
>> as follows:
>>
>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>>
>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>>
>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>> reference manual [6].
>>
>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> JB
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1010/
>> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
>> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>>
>
>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam, version 0.5.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Sergio Fernández <se...@redlink.co>.
+1 (non-binding)
So far I've successfully checked:
* signatures and digests
* source releases file layouts
* matched git tags and commit ids
* incubator suffix and disclaimer
* NOTICE and LICENSE files
* license headers
* clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
Two minor comments that do not block the release:
* Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc, since git tags
can be changed.
* Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role anymore,
you're a PMC now ;-)
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.5.0
> as follows:
>
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> reference manual [6].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> JB
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> ctId=12319527&version=12338859
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1010/
> [5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
> efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co