You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@beam.apache.org by Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> on 2020/05/19 20:51:16 UTC
[VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.21.0,
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
F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
* all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
* source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
* website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
* Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
* Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
dist.apache.org [2].
* Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with validation
[9].
* Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
Thanks,
Kyle
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
[2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
[3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
[4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
[5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
[6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
[7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
[8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
[9]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
[10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com>.
+1 (binding)
Verified:
* Signatures and file hashes
* Java quickstarts on local cluster runners and Dataflow.
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 1:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.21.0,
> 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
> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
> dist.apache.org [2].
> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with validation
> [9].
> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
> [9]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "datapls-team" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to datapls-team+unsubscribe@google.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msgid/datapls-team/CAPNDjO%2BKRLUWDXaeyjheVNMQxFJ%3DeeHUpMUDT_UF8xKFSCDnJA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msgid/datapls-team/CAPNDjO%2BKRLUWDXaeyjheVNMQxFJ%3DeeHUpMUDT_UF8xKFSCDnJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "datapls-eng" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to datapls-eng+unsubscribe@google.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msgid/datapls-eng/CAPNDjO%2BKRLUWDXaeyjheVNMQxFJ%3DeeHUpMUDT_UF8xKFSCDnJA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/msgid/datapls-eng/CAPNDjO%2BKRLUWDXaeyjheVNMQxFJ%3DeeHUpMUDT_UF8xKFSCDnJA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/d/optout.
>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:08 PM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:55 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release pick
>> up anything that isn't critical.
>>
>
> +1. The question is whether this will result in broken installs (e.g. if
> we don't exclude Flink 1.10.1 and the user tries to use it with this
> release).
>
That's fine. The RC, which is based on Flink 1.10.0, will also work with a
Flink 1.10.1 cluster.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:55 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
> The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release pick
> up anything that isn't critical.
>
+1. The question is whether this will result in broken installs (e.g. if we
don't exclude Flink 1.10.1 and the user tries to use it with this release).
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
>> rather than have so many manual steps...
>>
>> The new set of wheels look good now. Verified all the hashes and
>> signatures and source tarball contents as well. Ran a couple of test
>> pipelines.
>>
>> I noticed https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11722 was just merged. Are
>> we OK excluding that? Other than that looks good.
>>
>> +1 (binding) pending the one question above.
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part
>>> of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up
>>> to date now, PTAL.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after some
>>>> cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging are
>>>> up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on
>>>> dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis build to
>>>> do. I might have to copy over the new wheels myself.
>>>>
>>>> > Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>>> > part of the next RC, no?
>>>>
>>>> At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there
>>>> turn out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can
>>>> consider including BEAM-9887 then.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>>>> part of the next RC, no?
>>>>> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > unzip -p
>>>>> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
>>>>> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
>>>>> >
>>>>> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing from
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
>>>>> .
>>>>> >
>>>>> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the
>>>>> release at this point.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hi Luke,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
>>>>> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the
>>>>> input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with
>>>>> length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of
>>>>> length 10. But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will
>>>>> be built with input value with length less than the expected length.
>>>>> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there
>>>>> shouldn't be any problems.
>>>>> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Regards,
>>>>> >> Rahul
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without
>>>>> PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till
>>>>> 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be
>>>>> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
>>>>> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Regards,
>>>>> >>>> Rahul
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <
>>>>> hannahjiang@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java
>>>>> and Python docker images as expected.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to
>>>>> vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <
>>>>> sniemitz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked
>>>>> as 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
>>>>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
>>>>> Is this a blocker?
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>> version 2.21.0, 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
>>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>>>>> Repository [4],
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing
>>>>> the API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and
>>>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source
>>>>> release to the dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help
>>>>> with validation [9].
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted
>>>>> by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kyle
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [9]
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [10]
>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>>
>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>.
Thanks Kenn. Which experimental feature are you referring to?
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:00 AM Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 is a correctness
> issue, basically an experimental feature (I hope marked as such) not really
> working at all. It probably has a fairly small audience for now. I will not
> -1 because of it but I will -0. If there is another RC this should be
> included. Reuven probably has a better idea of the overall impact of the
> bug.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:05 PM Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Please note https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11777 - another bug we
>> found while trying to upgrade to 2.21
>>
>> Other than that things look good.
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:14 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (again, validated with new whl files.)
>>>
>>> What about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015? Is this a
>>> blocker?
>>>
>>> +Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> +Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> --
>>> since you are both tagged on the JIRA.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
>>>> rather than have so many manual steps...
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Luckily building wheels is one of only a couple steps that
>>>> aren't automated yet. Partially related:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:55 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release
>>>>> pick up anything that isn't critical.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
>>>>>> rather than have so many manual steps...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The new set of wheels look good now. Verified all the hashes and
>>>>>> signatures and source tarball contents as well. Ran a couple of test
>>>>>> pipelines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11722 was just merged.
>>>>>> Are we OK excluding that? Other than that looks good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 (binding) pending the one question above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part
>>>>>>> of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up
>>>>>>> to date now, PTAL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after
>>>>>>>> some cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging
>>>>>>>> are up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on
>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis
>>>>>>>> build to do. I might have to copy over the new wheels myself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> > part of the next RC, no?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there
>>>>>>>> turn out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can
>>>>>>>> consider including BEAM-9887 then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> part of the next RC, no?
>>>>>>>>> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <
>>>>>>>>> robertwb@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>>>>>>>>> E.g.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > unzip -p
>>>>>>>>> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
>>>>>>>>> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the
>>>>>>>>> release at this point.)
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Hi Luke,
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
>>>>>>>>> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type,
>>>>>>>>> the input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with
>>>>>>>>> length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of
>>>>>>>>> length 10. But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will
>>>>>>>>> be built with input value with length less than the expected length.
>>>>>>>>> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there
>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be any problems.
>>>>>>>>> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> >> Rahul
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken
>>>>>>>>> without PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would
>>>>>>>>> waiting till 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be
>>>>>>>>> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
>>>>>>>>> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> >>>> Rahul
>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <
>>>>>>>>> hannahjiang@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to
>>>>>>>>> Java and Python docker images as expected.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others
>>>>>>>>> to vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <
>>>>>>>>> sniemitz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was
>>>>>>>>> marked as 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like
>>>>>>>>> the implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect
>>>>>>>>> data. Is this a blocker?
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for
>>>>>>>>> the version 2.21.0, 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 F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>>>>>>>>> Repository [4],
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6],
>>>>>>>>> publishing the API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and
>>>>>>>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source
>>>>>>>>> release to the dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help
>>>>>>>>> with validation [9].
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is
>>>>>>>>> adopted by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kyle
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [5]
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [9]
>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [10]
>>>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 is a correctness
issue, basically an experimental feature (I hope marked as such) not really
working at all. It probably has a fairly small audience for now. I will not
-1 because of it but I will -0. If there is another RC this should be
included. Reuven probably has a better idea of the overall impact of the
bug.
Kenn
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:05 PM Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> Please note https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11777 - another bug we
> found while trying to upgrade to 2.21
>
> Other than that things look good.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:14 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (again, validated with new whl files.)
>>
>> What about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015? Is this a
>> blocker?
>>
>> +Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> +Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> --
>> since you are both tagged on the JIRA.
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
>>> rather than have so many manual steps...
>>>
>>> Agreed. Luckily building wheels is one of only a couple steps that
>>> aren't automated yet. Partially related:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:55 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release
>>>> pick up anything that isn't critical.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
>>>>> rather than have so many manual steps...
>>>>>
>>>>> The new set of wheels look good now. Verified all the hashes and
>>>>> signatures and source tarball contents as well. Ran a couple of test
>>>>> pipelines.
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11722 was just merged.
>>>>> Are we OK excluding that? Other than that looks good.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 (binding) pending the one question above.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part
>>>>>> of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up
>>>>>> to date now, PTAL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after
>>>>>>> some cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging
>>>>>>> are up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on
>>>>>>> dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis build
>>>>>>> to do. I might have to copy over the new wheels myself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> > part of the next RC, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there
>>>>>>> turn out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can
>>>>>>> consider including BEAM-9887 then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>>>>>>> part of the next RC, no?
>>>>>>>> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <
>>>>>>>> robertwb@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>>>>>>>> E.g.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > unzip -p
>>>>>>>> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
>>>>>>>> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the
>>>>>>>> release at this point.)
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Hi Luke,
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
>>>>>>>> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the
>>>>>>>> input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with
>>>>>>>> length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of
>>>>>>>> length 10. But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will
>>>>>>>> be built with input value with length less than the expected length.
>>>>>>>> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there
>>>>>>>> shouldn't be any problems.
>>>>>>>> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> Regards,
>>>>>>>> >> Rahul
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken
>>>>>>>> without PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would
>>>>>>>> waiting till 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be
>>>>>>>> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
>>>>>>>> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> >>>> Rahul
>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <
>>>>>>>> hannahjiang@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to
>>>>>>>> Java and Python docker images as expected.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others
>>>>>>>> to vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <
>>>>>>>> sniemitz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was
>>>>>>>> marked as 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like
>>>>>>>> the implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect
>>>>>>>> data. Is this a blocker?
>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for
>>>>>>>> the version 2.21.0, 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
>>>>>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>>>>>>>> Repository [4],
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6],
>>>>>>>> publishing the API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and
>>>>>>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source
>>>>>>>> release to the dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help
>>>>>>>> with validation [9].
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is
>>>>>>>> adopted by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kyle
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [5]
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [9]
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [10]
>>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>.
Please note https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11777 - another bug we
found while trying to upgrade to 2.21
Other than that things look good.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:14 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
> +1 (again, validated with new whl files.)
>
> What about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015? Is this a
> blocker?
>
> +Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> +Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> -- since
> you are both tagged on the JIRA.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> > We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
>> rather than have so many manual steps...
>>
>> Agreed. Luckily building wheels is one of only a couple steps that aren't
>> automated yet. Partially related:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388.
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:55 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release pick
>>> up anything that isn't critical.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
>>>> rather than have so many manual steps...
>>>>
>>>> The new set of wheels look good now. Verified all the hashes and
>>>> signatures and source tarball contents as well. Ran a couple of test
>>>> pipelines.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11722 was just merged.
>>>> Are we OK excluding that? Other than that looks good.
>>>>
>>>> +1 (binding) pending the one question above.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part
>>>>> of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up
>>>>> to date now, PTAL.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after
>>>>>> some cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging
>>>>>> are up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on
>>>>>> dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis build
>>>>>> to do. I might have to copy over the new wheels myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>>>>> > part of the next RC, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there
>>>>>> turn out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can
>>>>>> consider including BEAM-9887 then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>>>>>> part of the next RC, no?
>>>>>>> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > unzip -p
>>>>>>> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
>>>>>>> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the
>>>>>>> release at this point.)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Hi Luke,
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
>>>>>>> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the
>>>>>>> input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with
>>>>>>> length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of
>>>>>>> length 10. But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will
>>>>>>> be built with input value with length less than the expected length.
>>>>>>> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there
>>>>>>> shouldn't be any problems.
>>>>>>> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Regards,
>>>>>>> >> Rahul
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken
>>>>>>> without PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would
>>>>>>> waiting till 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be
>>>>>>> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
>>>>>>> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> >>>> Rahul
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <
>>>>>>> hannahjiang@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to
>>>>>>> Java and Python docker images as expected.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others
>>>>>>> to vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <
>>>>>>> sniemitz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was
>>>>>>> marked as 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like
>>>>>>> the implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect
>>>>>>> data. Is this a blocker?
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>>>> version 2.21.0, 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
>>>>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>>>>>>> Repository [4],
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing
>>>>>>> the API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and
>>>>>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source
>>>>>>> release to the dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help
>>>>>>> with validation [9].
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted
>>>>>>> by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kyle
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [5]
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [9]
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [10]
>>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>.
+1 (again, validated with new whl files.)
What about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015? Is this a
blocker?
+Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com> +Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> -- since
you are both tagged on the JIRA.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
> > We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
> rather than have so many manual steps...
>
> Agreed. Luckily building wheels is one of only a couple steps that aren't
> automated yet. Partially related:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:55 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release pick
>> up anything that isn't critical.
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
>>> rather than have so many manual steps...
>>>
>>> The new set of wheels look good now. Verified all the hashes and
>>> signatures and source tarball contents as well. Ran a couple of test
>>> pipelines.
>>>
>>> I noticed https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11722 was just merged.
>>> Are we OK excluding that? Other than that looks good.
>>>
>>> +1 (binding) pending the one question above.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part
>>>> of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up
>>>> to date now, PTAL.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after
>>>>> some cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging
>>>>> are up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on
>>>>> dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis build
>>>>> to do. I might have to copy over the new wheels myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>>>> > part of the next RC, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there
>>>>> turn out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can
>>>>> consider including BEAM-9887 then.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>>>>> part of the next RC, no?
>>>>>> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > unzip -p
>>>>>> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
>>>>>> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the
>>>>>> release at this point.)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hi Luke,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
>>>>>> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the
>>>>>> input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with
>>>>>> length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of
>>>>>> length 10. But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will
>>>>>> be built with input value with length less than the expected length.
>>>>>> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there
>>>>>> shouldn't be any problems.
>>>>>> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Regards,
>>>>>> >> Rahul
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without
>>>>>> PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till
>>>>>> 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be
>>>>>> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
>>>>>> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Regards,
>>>>>> >>>> Rahul
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <
>>>>>> hannahjiang@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to
>>>>>> Java and Python docker images as expected.
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to
>>>>>> vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <
>>>>>> sniemitz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked
>>>>>> as 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
>>>>>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
>>>>>> Is this a blocker?
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>>> version 2.21.0, 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
>>>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>>>>>> Repository [4],
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing
>>>>>> the API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and
>>>>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source
>>>>>> release to the dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help
>>>>>> with validation [9].
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted
>>>>>> by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kyle
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [9]
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [10]
>>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>.
> We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
rather than have so many manual steps...
Agreed. Luckily building wheels is one of only a couple steps that aren't
automated yet. Partially related:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:55 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
> The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release pick
> up anything that isn't critical.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
>> rather than have so many manual steps...
>>
>> The new set of wheels look good now. Verified all the hashes and
>> signatures and source tarball contents as well. Ran a couple of test
>> pipelines.
>>
>> I noticed https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11722 was just merged. Are
>> we OK excluding that? Other than that looks good.
>>
>> +1 (binding) pending the one question above.
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part
>>> of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up
>>> to date now, PTAL.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after some
>>>> cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging are
>>>> up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on
>>>> dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis build to
>>>> do. I might have to copy over the new wheels myself.
>>>>
>>>> > Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>>> > part of the next RC, no?
>>>>
>>>> At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there
>>>> turn out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can
>>>> consider including BEAM-9887 then.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>>>> part of the next RC, no?
>>>>> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > unzip -p
>>>>> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
>>>>> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
>>>>> >
>>>>> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing from
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
>>>>> .
>>>>> >
>>>>> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the
>>>>> release at this point.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hi Luke,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
>>>>> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the
>>>>> input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with
>>>>> length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of
>>>>> length 10. But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will
>>>>> be built with input value with length less than the expected length.
>>>>> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there
>>>>> shouldn't be any problems.
>>>>> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Regards,
>>>>> >> Rahul
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without
>>>>> PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till
>>>>> 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <
>>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be
>>>>> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
>>>>> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Regards,
>>>>> >>>> Rahul
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <
>>>>> hannahjiang@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java
>>>>> and Python docker images as expected.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to
>>>>> vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <
>>>>> sniemitz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked
>>>>> as 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
>>>>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
>>>>> Is this a blocker?
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>>> version 2.21.0, 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
>>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>>>>> Repository [4],
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing
>>>>> the API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and
>>>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source
>>>>> release to the dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help
>>>>> with validation [9].
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted
>>>>> by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kyle
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [9]
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [10]
>>>>> https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>>
>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com>.
The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release pick up
anything that isn't critical.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com> wrote:
> We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
> rather than have so many manual steps...
>
> The new set of wheels look good now. Verified all the hashes and
> signatures and source tarball contents as well. Ran a couple of test
> pipelines.
>
> I noticed https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11722 was just merged. Are
> we OK excluding that? Other than that looks good.
>
> +1 (binding) pending the one question above.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part
>> of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up
>> to date now, PTAL.
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>>>
>>> Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after some
>>> cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging are
>>> up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on
>>> dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis build to
>>> do. I might have to copy over the new wheels myself.
>>>
>>> > Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>> > part of the next RC, no?
>>>
>>> At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there turn
>>> out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can
>>> consider including BEAM-9887 then.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>>> part of the next RC, no?
>>>> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g.
>>>> >
>>>> > unzip -p
>>>> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
>>>> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
>>>> >
>>>> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing from
>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
>>>> .
>>>> >
>>>> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the release
>>>> at this point.)
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <
>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hi Luke,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
>>>> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the
>>>> input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with
>>>> length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of
>>>> length 10. But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will
>>>> be built with input value with length less than the expected length.
>>>> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there shouldn't
>>>> be any problems.
>>>> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Regards,
>>>> >> Rahul
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without
>>>> PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till
>>>> 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <
>>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Hi,
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be
>>>> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
>>>> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Regards,
>>>> >>>> Rahul
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <
>>>> hannahjiang@google.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java
>>>> and Python docker images as expected.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to
>>>> vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <
>>>> sniemitz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked
>>>> as 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
>>>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
>>>> Is this a blocker?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>>> version 2.21.0, 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
>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>>>> Repository [4],
>>>> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing
>>>> the API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and
>>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release
>>>> to the dist.apache.org [2].
>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with
>>>> validation [9].
>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>> majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kyle
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>> >>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>> >>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>> >>>>>>>>> [9]
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>> >>>>>>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>.
We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts,
rather than have so many manual steps...
The new set of wheels look good now. Verified all the hashes and signatures
and source tarball contents as well. Ran a couple of test pipelines.
I noticed https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11722 was just merged. Are we
OK excluding that? Other than that looks good.
+1 (binding) pending the one question above.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
> Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part
> of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up
> to date now, PTAL.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>>
>> Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after some
>> cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging are
>> up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on
>> dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis build to
>> do. I might have to copy over the new wheels myself.
>>
>> > Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>> > part of the next RC, no?
>>
>> At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there turn
>> out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can
>> consider including BEAM-9887 then.
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>>> part of the next RC, no?
>>> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g.
>>> >
>>> > unzip -p
>>> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
>>> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
>>> >
>>> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing from
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
>>> .
>>> >
>>> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the release
>>> at this point.)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <
>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Luke,
>>> >>
>>> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
>>> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the
>>> input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with
>>> length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of
>>> length 10. But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will
>>> be built with input value with length less than the expected length.
>>> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there shouldn't
>>> be any problems.
>>> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Rahul
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without
>>> PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till
>>> 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <
>>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be
>>> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
>>> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Regards,
>>> >>>> Rahul
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <
>>> hannahjiang@google.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java
>>> and Python docker images as expected.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to
>>> vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <
>>> sniemitz@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as
>>> 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
>>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
>>> Is this a blocker?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <
>>> kcweaver@google.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>> version 2.21.0, 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
>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>>> [4],
>>> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the
>>> API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and
>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
>>> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release
>>> to the dist.apache.org [2].
>>> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with
>>> validation [9].
>>> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>> majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>> >>>>>>>>> Kyle
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> >>>>>>>>> [4]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>> >>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>> >>>>>>>>> [9]
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>> >>>>>>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>.
Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part
of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up
to date now, PTAL.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
>
> Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after some
> cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging are
> up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on
> dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis build to
> do. I might have to copy over the new wheels myself.
>
> > Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
> > part of the next RC, no?
>
> At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there turn
> out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can
> consider including BEAM-9887 then.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
>> part of the next RC, no?
>> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g.
>> >
>> > unzip -p
>> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
>> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
>> >
>> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing from
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
>> .
>> >
>> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the release
>> at this point.)
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <
>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Luke,
>> >>
>> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
>> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the input
>> value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with length
>> 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of length 10.
>> But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will be built
>> with input value with length less than the expected length.
>> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there shouldn't
>> be any problems.
>> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Rahul
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without
>> PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till
>> 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <
>> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be
>> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
>> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Regards,
>> >>>> Rahul
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <
>> hannahjiang@google.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java
>> and Python docker images as expected.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to
>> vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <
>> sniemitz@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as
>> 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
>> Is this a blocker?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>> version 2.21.0, 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
>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>> [4],
>> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the
>> API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle
>> JDK 1.8.0.
>> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release
>> to the dist.apache.org [2].
>> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with
>> validation [9].
>> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>> majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>> Kyle
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>> >>>>>>>>> [4]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>> >>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>> >>>>>>>>> [9]
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>> >>>>>>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>.
> -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit.
Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after some
cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging are
up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on
dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis build to do.
I might have to copy over the new wheels myself.
> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
> part of the next RC, no?
At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there turn
out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can
consider including BEAM-9887 then.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
> part of the next RC, no?
> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g.
> >
> > unzip -p
> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
> >
> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing from
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
> .
> >
> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the release at
> this point.)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <
> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Luke,
> >>
> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the input
> value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with length
> 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of length 10.
> But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will be built
> with input value with length less than the expected length.
> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there shouldn't be
> any problems.
> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Rahul
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without
> PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till
> 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <
> rahulpatwari8383@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be
> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Rahul
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <ha...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java and
> Python docker images as expected.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote
> on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <sn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as
> 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
> Is this a blocker?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
> version 2.21.0, 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
> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
> [4],
> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the
> API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle
> JDK 1.8.0.
> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to
> the dist.apache.org [2].
> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with
> validation [9].
> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> Kyle
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> >>>>>>>>> [4]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
> >>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
> >>>>>>>>> [9]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
> >>>>>>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>.
Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as
part of the next RC, no?
It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com> wrote:
>
> -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g.
>
> unzip -p apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
>
> notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing from https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py.
>
> (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the release at this point.)
>
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Luke,
>>
>> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
>> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of length 10. But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will be built with input value with length less than the expected length.
>> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there shouldn't be any problems.
>> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rahul
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release?
>>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Rahul
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <ha...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java and Python docker images as expected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <sn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data. Is this a blocker?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.21.0, 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 F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
>>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with validation [9].
>>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Kyle
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>>> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>>>>>> [9] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>>>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Robert Bradshaw <ro...@google.com>.
-1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g.
unzip -p
apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl
apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40
notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing from
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py
.
(I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the release at
this point.)
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the input
> value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with length
> 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of length 10.
> But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will be built
> with input value with length less than the expected length.
> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there shouldn't be
> any problems.
> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9887>.
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without
>> PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till
>> 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <ra...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be cherry-picked
>>> for 2.21.0 release?
>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887
>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9887>.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Rahul
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <ha...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java and
>>>>> Python docker images as expected.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote on
>>>>>> whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <sn...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21
>>>>>>> but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
>>>>>>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
>>>>>>> Is this a blocker?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> +Reuven Lax <re...@google.com>, would this be a release blocker?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>>>>>>> 2.21.0, 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
>>>>>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>>>>>>>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK
>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to
>>>>>>>> the dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with
>>>>>>>> validation [9].
>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>>> majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Kyle
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>>>>> [9]
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by rahul patwari <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi Luke,
The release is not severely broken without PR #11609.
The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the input
value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with length
10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of length 10.
But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will be built
with input value with length less than the expected length.
But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there shouldn't be any
problems.
I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9887>.
Regards,
Rahul
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without PR/11609
> enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till 2.22
> (which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be cherry-picked
>> for 2.21.0 release?
>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9887>.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rahul
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <ha...@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java and
>>>> Python docker images as expected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote on
>>>>> whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <sn...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21
>>>>>> but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
>>>>>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
>>>>>> Is this a blocker?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> +Reuven Lax <re...@google.com>, would this be a release blocker?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>>>>>> 2.21.0, 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
>>>>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>>>>>>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK
>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>>>>>>> dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with
>>>>>>> validation [9].
>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>>> majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Kyle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>>>> [9]
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com>.
Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without PR/11609
enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till 2.22
(which is due to be cut tomorrow)?
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be cherry-picked
> for 2.21.0 release?
> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9887>.
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <ha...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java and
>>> Python docker images as expected.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote on
>>>> whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <sn...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21
>>>>> but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
>>>>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
>>>>> Is this a blocker?
>>>>>
>>>>
>> +Reuven Lax <re...@google.com>, would this be a release blocker?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>>>>> 2.21.0, 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
>>>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>>>>>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK
>>>>>> 1.8.0.
>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>>>>>> dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with
>>>>>> validation [9].
>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>>>>> majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Kyle
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>>> [9]
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by rahul patwari <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be cherry-picked for
2.21.0 release?
If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9887>.
Regards,
Rahul
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <ha...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java and
>> Python docker images as expected.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote on
>>> whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <sn...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21
>>>> but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the
>>>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data.
>>>> Is this a blocker?
>>>>
>>>
> +Reuven Lax <re...@google.com>, would this be a release blocker?
>
>
>>
>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>>>> 2.21.0, 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
>>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>>>>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK
>>>>> 1.8.0.
>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>>>>> dist.apache.org [2].
>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with
>>>>> validation [9].
>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Kyle
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>>> [4]
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>>> [9]
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>>
>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com>.
+1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts.
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang <ha...@google.com> wrote:
> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java and Python
> docker images as expected.
>
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote on
>> whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <sn...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21 but
>>> isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the implication is
>>> that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data. Is this a
>>> blocker?
>>>
>>
+Reuven Lax <re...@google.com>, would this be a release blocker?
>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>>> 2.21.0, 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
>>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>>>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK
>>>> 1.8.0.
>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>>>> dist.apache.org [2].
>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with
>>>> validation [9].
>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>>
>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>>> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Kyle
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>>> [4]
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>>> [9]
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Hannah Jiang <ha...@google.com>.
I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java and Python
docker images as expected.
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote on
> whether that necessitates an RC #2.
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <sn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21 but
>> isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the implication is
>> that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data. Is this a
>> blocker?
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>> 2.21.0, 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
>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK
>>> 1.8.0.
>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>>> dist.apache.org [2].
>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with validation
>>> [9].
>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kyle
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> [4]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>>> [9]
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com>.
Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote on
whether that necessitates an RC #2.
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz <sn...@apache.org> wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21 but
> isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the implication is
> that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data. Is this a
> blocker?
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>> 2.21.0, 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
>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>> dist.apache.org [2].
>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with validation
>> [9].
>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>>
>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyle
>>
>> [1]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>> [4]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
>> [9]
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1
Posted by Steve Niemitz <sn...@apache.org>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21 but
isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the implication is
that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data. Is this a
blocker?
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver <kc...@google.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.21.0,
> 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
> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0.
> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
> dist.apache.org [2].
> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with validation
> [9].
> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/
> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1
> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727
> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603
> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729
> [9]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202
> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>