Re: [PROPOSAL] Prepare for LTS bugfix release 2.7.1

[Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org>]

I went ahead and took over all the bugs and did the cherrypicks for the
remaining backports targeting 2.7.1:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=statusCategory%20%3D%20new%20AND%20project%20%3D%2012319527%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%2012344458

The tests are not healthy. I have not had time to look into the issues. I
would appreciate some help reviewing and/or manually running tests and
publishing gradle build scans.

Kenn

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 3:08 AM Maximilian Michels <mx...@apache.org> wrote:

> Created an up-to-date version of the Flink backports for 2.7.1:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8787
>
> Some of the Gradle task names have changed which makes testing via Jenkins
> hard. Will have to run them manually before merging.
>
> -Max
>
> On 06.06.19 17:41, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Re-raising this thread. I got busy for the last month, and also did not
> > want to overlap the 2.13.0 release process. Now I want to pick up 2.7.1
> > again.
> >
> > Can everyone check on any bug they have targeted to 2.7.1 [1] and get
> > the backports merged to release-2.7.1 and the tickets resolved?
> >
> > Kenn
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.7.1%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:19 AM Ahmet Altay <altay@google.com
> > <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     I agree with both keeping 2.7.x going until a new LTS is declared
> >     and declaring LTS spost-release after some use. 2.12 might actually
> >     be a good candidate, with multiple RCs/validations it presumably is
> >     well tested. We can consider that after it gets some real world use.
> >
> >     On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:29 AM Robert Bradshaw <robertwb@google.com
> >     <ma...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> >         IIRC, there was some talk on making 2.12 the next LTS, but the
> >         consensus is to decide on a LTS after having had some experience
> >         with
> >         it, not at or before the release itself.
> >
> >
> >         On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:04 PM Alexey Romanenko
> >         <aromanenko.dev@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >          >
> >          > Thanks for working on this, Kenn.
> >          >
> >          > Perhaps, I missed this but has it been already
> >         discussed/decided what will be the next LTS release?
> >          >
> >          > On 26 Apr 2019, at 08:02, Kenneth Knowles <kenn@apache.org
> >         <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >          >
> >          > Since it is all trivially reversible if there is some other
> >         feeling about this thread, I have gone ahead and started the
> work:
> >          >
> >          >  - I made release-2.7.1 branch point to the same commit as
> >         release-2.7.0 so there is something to target PRs
> >          >  - I have opened the first PR, cherry-picking the set_version
> >         script and using it to set the version on the branch to 2.7.1:
> >         https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8407 (found bug in the new
> >         script right away :-)
> >          >
> >          > Here is the release with list of issues:
> >         https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/BEAM/versions/12344458.
> >         So anyone can grab a ticket and volunteer to open a backport PR
> >         to the release-2.7.1 branch.
> >          >
> >          > I don't have a strong opinion about how long we should
> >         support the 2.7.x line. I am curious about different
> >         perspectives on user / vendor needs. I have two very basic
> >         thoughts: (1) we surely need to keep it going until some time
> >         after we have another LTS designated, to make sure there is a
> >         clear path for anyone only using LTS releases and (2) if we
> >         decide to end support of 2.7.x but then someone volunteers to
> >         backport and release, of course I would not expect anyone to
> >         block them, so it has no maximum lifetime, but we just need
> >         consensus on a minimum. And of course that consensus cannot
> >         force anyone to do the work, but is just a resolution of the
> >         community.
> >          >
> >          > Kenn
> >          >
> >          > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:29 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >         <jb@nanthrax.net <ma...@nanthrax.net>> wrote:
> >          >>
> >          >> +1 it sounds good to me.
> >          >>
> >          >> Thanks !
> >          >>
> >          >> Regards
> >          >> JB
> >          >>
> >          >> On 26/04/2019 02:42, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> >          >> > Hi all,
> >          >> >
> >          >> > Since the release of 2.7.0 we have identified some serious
> >         bugs:
> >          >> >
> >          >> >  - There are 8 (non-dupe) issues* tagged with Fix Version
> >         2.7.1
> >          >> >  - 2 are rated "Blocker" (aka P0) but I think the others
> >         may be underrated
> >          >> >  - If you know of a critical bug that is not on that list,
> >         please file
> >          >> > an LTS backport ticket for it
> >          >> >
> >          >> > If a user is on an old version and wants to move to the
> >         LTS, there are
> >          >> > some real blockers. I propose that we perform a 2.7.1
> >         release starting now.
> >          >> >
> >          >> > I volunteer to manage the release. What do you think?
> >          >> >
> >          >> > Kenn
> >          >> >
> >          >> > *Some are "resolved" but this is not accurate as the LTS
> >         2.7.1 branch is
> >          >> > not created yet. I suggest filing a ticket to track just
> >         the LTS
> >          >> > backport when you hit a bug that merits it.
> >          >> >
> >          >
> >          >
> >
>
>