You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@beam.apache.org by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> on 2016/12/16 13:06:42 UTC

[VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Hi everyone,

Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
0.4.0-incubating, 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],
* all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
* source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
* website pull request listing the release and publishing the API reference
manual [5].

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.

Thanks,
Regards
JB

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12338590
[2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-incubating/
[3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1008/
[4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
[5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109

[CANCEL][VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi all,

as we have now graduated, and the IPMC don't have to vote for our 
releases, we cancel this release in order to start a fresh 0.4.0 release 
(without -incubating).

Thanks anyway for your vote and sorry for the inconvenience.

Regards
JB

On 12/16/2016 02:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
> 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API reference
> manual [5].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> Regards
> JB
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12338590
>
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-incubating/
> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1008/
> [4]
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
>
> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

[RESULT][VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi,

I'm happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this release.

There are 8 approving votes, 5 of which are binding:
* Kenneth Knowles
* Davor Bonaci
* Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
* Dan Halperin
* Aljoscha Krettek

There are no disapproving votes.

Thanks everyone!

Regards
JB

On 12/16/2016 02:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
> 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API reference
> manual [5].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> Regards
> JB
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12338590
>
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-incubating/
> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1008/
> [4]
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
>
> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>.
+1

- verified signatures
- ran Quickstart using the staging repository on Flink cluster
- verified build form source

(We'll probably do a 0.5.0 release shortly after this so we can fix the
BigQuery issues.)

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 at 21:22 Dan Halperin <dh...@google.com.invalid>
wrote:

> I vetted the binary artifacts accompanying the release by running several
> jobs on the Dataflow and Direct runners. At a high level, the release looks
> fine -- I ran some of my favorite jobs and they all worked swimmingly.
>
> There are some severe bugs in BigQueryIO in the release. Specifically, we
> broke the ability to write to BigQuery using different tables for every
> window. To a large degree, this makes BigQuery useless when working with
> unbounded data (streaming pipelines). The bugs have been fixed (and
> accompanying tests added) in PRs #1651 and #1400.
>
> Conclusion: +0.8
>
> * 0.4.0-incubating RC3 is largely an improvement over 0.3.0-incubating,
> especially in the user getting started experience.
> * The bugs in BigQueryIO are blockers for BigQuery users, but this is
> likely a relatively small fraction of the Beam community. I would not
> retract RC3 based on this alone. Unless we plan to cut an RC4 for other
> reasons, we should move forward with RC3.
>
> I'd hope that we hear from key users of the Apex, Flink, and Spark runners
> before closing the vote, even though it's technically been 72+ hours. I
> suggest we wait to ensure they have an opportunity to chime in.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
>
> Appendix: pom.xml changes to use binary releases from Apache Staging:
>
>   <repositories>
>     <repository>
>       <id>apache.staging</id>
>       <name>Apache Development Staging Repository</name>
>       <url>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/
> </url>
>       <releases>
>         <enabled>true</enabled>
>       </releases>
>       <snapshots>
>         <enabled>false</enabled>
>       </snapshots>
>     </repository>
>   </repositories>
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > The good thing is that my issue to access repository.apache.org Nexus is
> > now fixed.
> >
> > To update the signature files, we have to drop the Nexus repository to
> > stage a new one,
> > meaning cancel the current vote to do a new RC4.
> >
> > I can do that, up to you.
> >
> > Anyway, regarding the release content, +1 (binding).
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >
> > On 12/18/2016 06:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed -- I did help JB with the release ever so slightly, due to the
> >> networking connectivity issue reaching repository.apache.org, which JB
> >> further described and is tracked in INFRA-13086 [1]. This is not
> >> Beam-specific.
> >>
> >> The current signature shouldn't be a problem at all, but, since others
> are
> >> asking about it, I think it would be the best to simply re-sign the
> source
> >> .zip archive and continuing this vote. JB, what do you think?
> >>
> >> Regarding the release itself, I think we need to keep raising the
> quality
> >> and maturity release-over-release, and test signals are an excellent way
> >> to
> >> demonstrate that. Due to the recent upgrades to Jenkins, usage of the
> DSL,
> >> etc. (thanks INFRA and Jason Kuster), we can now, for the first time,
> >> formally show that the release candidate clearly passes all Jenkins
> suites
> >> that we have:
> >> * All unit tests across the project, plus example ITs across all runners
> >> [2], [3].
> >> * All integration tests on the Apex runner [4].
> >> * All integration tests on the Flink runner [5].
> >> * All integration tests on the Spark runner [6].
> >> * All integration tests on the Dataflow runner [7].
> >>
> >> That said, I know of a few issues/regressions in the areas that are not
> >> well tested today. I think Dan Halperin has more context, so I'll let
> him
> >> speak of the details, and quote relevant JIRA issues.
> >>
> >> With the known issues in 0.3.0-incubating, such as trouble running
> >> examples
> >> out-of-the-box, I think this release candidate is a clear win. Of
> course,
> >> that may change if more issues are discovered.
> >>
> >> For me, this release candidate is +1 (at this time), contingent upon no
> >> known major issues affecting Apex, Flink and Spark runners.
> >>
> >> Davor
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13086
> >> [2]
> >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_
> >> MavenInstall/5994/
> >> [3]
> >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> >> _MavenInstall/2116/
> >> [4]
> >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> >> _RunnableOnService_Apex/10/
> >> [5]
> >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> >> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1120/
> >> [6]
> >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> >> _RunnableOnService_Spark/430/
> >> [7]
> >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> >> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/1830/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kenneth Knowles <klk@google.com.invalid
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1, as long as it is fine for the release to be signed by a PMC member
> >>> other than the release manager. Otherwise need to replace the .asc
> file.
> >>>
> >>> Following [Apache release checklist](
> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list):
> >>>
> >>> 1.1 Verified checksums & signature (Davor's)
> >>> 2.1 Ran unit tests and integration tests
> >>> 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct
> >>> 3.2 LICENSE & NOTICE are correct
> >>> 3.3 Files have license headers (RAT & checkstyle)
> >>> 3.4 Provenance is clear
> >>> 3.5 Dependencies license are legal (RAT) [2]
> >>> 3.6 Release contains source code, no binaries
> >>>
> >>> Additionally:
> >>>
> >>>  - Went over the generated javadoc (filed tickets but no release
> >>> blockers)
> >>>  - Went over the generated release notes
> >>>  - Sanity checked the Maven Central artifacts
> >>>  - Confirmed that the git tag matches
> >>>  - Checked the website PR
> >>>
> >>> I heartily agree that the components would give much better context on
> >>> tickets. Even with that, our JIRA titles could use a lot of
> improvement.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
> >>>> 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
> >>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
> >>>> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
> >>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> >>>>
> >>> reference
> >>>
> >>>> manual [5].
> >>>>
> >>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> >>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> JB
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> >>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338590
> >>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-
> >>>> incubating/
> >>>> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
> >>>>
> >>> beam-1008/
> >>>
> >>>> [4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git
> >>>> ;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
> >>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > jbonofre@apache.org
> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Thomas Weise <th...@apache.org>.
+1

- signatures
- build from source
- run quickstart with Apex runner

To get more folks participate in the release verification, it may be
helpful to publish verification steps/guidelines on the web site.

Thanks,
Thomas



On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 (ipmc binding)
>
> So far I've successfully checked:
> * signatures and digests
> * source releases file layouts
> * matched git tags and commit ids
> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
> * license headers
> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)
>
>
> P.S.: you can keep the dev@ vote as long as you need to verify the
> technical part of the release, the single format requirement is that it
> should be open _at least_ 72 hours.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > - verified signatures + checksums
> > - run mvn clean verify -Prelease, all artifacts build and the tests run
> > smoothly
> >
> > A new 0.4.1 release to include the BigQuery fix is a good idea, I think
> as
> > we approach graduation it is important that we define (if we haven't,
> > probably I just don't know) what issues are release blocker​s for future
> > releases and which issues can be fixed as minor patch versions.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the update Dan.
> > >
> > > I think we should move forward on this release as, as you said, we have
> > > important improvements compared to 0.3.0-incubating release.
> > > We can do a 0.4.1-incubating pretty soon to address the bigquery IO
> > > issues. I'm volunteer to do that.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > JB
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/19/2016 09:21 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
> > >
> > >> I vetted the binary artifacts accompanying the release by running
> > several
> > >> jobs on the Dataflow and Direct runners. At a high level, the release
> > >> looks
> > >> fine -- I ran some of my favorite jobs and they all worked swimmingly.
> > >>
> > >> There are some severe bugs in BigQueryIO in the release. Specifically,
> > we
> > >> broke the ability to write to BigQuery using different tables for
> every
> > >> window. To a large degree, this makes BigQuery useless when working
> with
> > >> unbounded data (streaming pipelines). The bugs have been fixed (and
> > >> accompanying tests added) in PRs #1651 and #1400.
> > >>
> > >> Conclusion: +0.8
> > >>
> > >> * 0.4.0-incubating RC3 is largely an improvement over
> 0.3.0-incubating,
> > >> especially in the user getting started experience.
> > >> * The bugs in BigQueryIO are blockers for BigQuery users, but this is
> > >> likely a relatively small fraction of the Beam community. I would not
> > >> retract RC3 based on this alone. Unless we plan to cut an RC4 for
> other
> > >> reasons, we should move forward with RC3.
> > >>
> > >> I'd hope that we hear from key users of the Apex, Flink, and Spark
> > runners
> > >> before closing the vote, even though it's technically been 72+ hours.
> I
> > >> suggest we wait to ensure they have an opportunity to chime in.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Dan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Appendix: pom.xml changes to use binary releases from Apache Staging:
> > >>
> > >>   <repositories>
> > >>     <repository>
> > >>       <id>apache.staging</id>
> > >>       <name>Apache Development Staging Repository</name>
> > >>       <url>https://repository.apache.org/content/
> repositories/staging/
> > >> </url>
> > >>       <releases>
> > >>         <enabled>true</enabled>
> > >>       </releases>
> > >>       <snapshots>
> > >>         <enabled>false</enabled>
> > >>       </snapshots>
> > >>     </repository>
> > >>   </repositories>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> jb@nanthrax.net
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi guys,
> > >>>
> > >>> The good thing is that my issue to access repository.apache.org
> Nexus
> > is
> > >>> now fixed.
> > >>>
> > >>> To update the signature files, we have to drop the Nexus repository
> to
> > >>> stage a new one,
> > >>> meaning cancel the current vote to do a new RC4.
> > >>>
> > >>> I can do that, up to you.
> > >>>
> > >>> Anyway, regarding the release content, +1 (binding).
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards
> > >>> JB
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 12/18/2016 06:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Indeed -- I did help JB with the release ever so slightly, due to the
> > >>>> networking connectivity issue reaching repository.apache.org, which
> > JB
> > >>>> further described and is tracked in INFRA-13086 [1]. This is not
> > >>>> Beam-specific.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The current signature shouldn't be a problem at all, but, since
> others
> > >>>> are
> > >>>> asking about it, I think it would be the best to simply re-sign the
> > >>>> source
> > >>>> .zip archive and continuing this vote. JB, what do you think?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regarding the release itself, I think we need to keep raising the
> > >>>> quality
> > >>>> and maturity release-over-release, and test signals are an excellent
> > way
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> demonstrate that. Due to the recent upgrades to Jenkins, usage of
> the
> > >>>> DSL,
> > >>>> etc. (thanks INFRA and Jason Kuster), we can now, for the first
> time,
> > >>>> formally show that the release candidate clearly passes all Jenkins
> > >>>> suites
> > >>>> that we have:
> > >>>> * All unit tests across the project, plus example ITs across all
> > runners
> > >>>> [2], [3].
> > >>>> * All integration tests on the Apex runner [4].
> > >>>> * All integration tests on the Flink runner [5].
> > >>>> * All integration tests on the Spark runner [6].
> > >>>> * All integration tests on the Dataflow runner [7].
> > >>>>
> > >>>> That said, I know of a few issues/regressions in the areas that are
> > not
> > >>>> well tested today. I think Dan Halperin has more context, so I'll
> let
> > >>>> him
> > >>>> speak of the details, and quote relevant JIRA issues.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> With the known issues in 0.3.0-incubating, such as trouble running
> > >>>> examples
> > >>>> out-of-the-box, I think this release candidate is a clear win. Of
> > >>>> course,
> > >>>> that may change if more issues are discovered.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For me, this release candidate is +1 (at this time), contingent upon
> > no
> > >>>> known major issues affecting Apex, Flink and Spark runners.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Davor
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13086
> > >>>> [2]
> > >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_
> > >>>> MavenInstall/5994/
> > >>>> [3]
> > >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> > >>>> _MavenInstall/2116/
> > >>>> [4]
> > >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> > >>>> _RunnableOnService_Apex/10/
> > >>>> [5]
> > >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> > >>>> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1120/
> > >>>> [6]
> > >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> > >>>> _RunnableOnService_Spark/430/
> > >>>> [7]
> > >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> > >>>> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/1830/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> > <klk@google.com.invalid
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +1, as long as it is fine for the release to be signed by a PMC
> member
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> other than the release manager. Otherwise need to replace the .asc
> > >>>>> file.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Following [Apache release checklist](
> > >>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#
> check-list
> > ):
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1.1 Verified checksums & signature (Davor's)
> > >>>>> 2.1 Ran unit tests and integration tests
> > >>>>> 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct
> > >>>>> 3.2 LICENSE & NOTICE are correct
> > >>>>> 3.3 Files have license headers (RAT & checkstyle)
> > >>>>> 3.4 Provenance is clear
> > >>>>> 3.5 Dependencies license are legal (RAT) [2]
> > >>>>> 3.6 Release contains source code, no binaries
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Additionally:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>  - Went over the generated javadoc (filed tickets but no release
> > >>>>> blockers)
> > >>>>>  - Went over the generated release notes
> > >>>>>  - Sanity checked the Maven Central artifacts
> > >>>>>  - Confirmed that the git tag matches
> > >>>>>  - Checked the website PR
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I heartily agree that the components would give much better context
> > on
> > >>>>> tickets. Even with that, our JIRA titles could use a lot of
> > >>>>> improvement.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> > jb@nanthrax.net
> > >>>>> >
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
> > >>>>>> 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
> > >>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
> [3],
> > >>>>>> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
> > >>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> reference
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> manual [5].
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> > majority
> > >>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>> JB
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> > >>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338590
> > >>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-
> > >>>>>> incubating/
> > >>>>>> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> beam-1008/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git
> > >>>>>> ;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
> > >>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > >>> jbonofre@apache.org
> > >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > > --
> > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > > jbonofre@apache.org
> > > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 6602747925 <+43%20660%202747925>
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
+1 (ipmc binding)

So far I've successfully checked:
* signatures and digests
* source releases file layouts
* matched git tags and commit ids
* incubator suffix and disclaimer
* NOTICE and LICENSE files
* license headers
* clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Debian amd64)


P.S.: you can keep the dev@ vote as long as you need to verify the
technical part of the release, the single format requirement is that it
should be open _at least_ 72 hours.


On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> - verified signatures + checksums
> - run mvn clean verify -Prelease, all artifacts build and the tests run
> smoothly
>
> A new 0.4.1 release to include the BigQuery fix is a good idea, I think as
> we approach graduation it is important that we define (if we haven't,
> probably I just don't know) what issues are release blocker​s for future
> releases and which issues can be fixed as minor patch versions.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the update Dan.
> >
> > I think we should move forward on this release as, as you said, we have
> > important improvements compared to 0.3.0-incubating release.
> > We can do a 0.4.1-incubating pretty soon to address the bigquery IO
> > issues. I'm volunteer to do that.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >
> > On 12/19/2016 09:21 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
> >
> >> I vetted the binary artifacts accompanying the release by running
> several
> >> jobs on the Dataflow and Direct runners. At a high level, the release
> >> looks
> >> fine -- I ran some of my favorite jobs and they all worked swimmingly.
> >>
> >> There are some severe bugs in BigQueryIO in the release. Specifically,
> we
> >> broke the ability to write to BigQuery using different tables for every
> >> window. To a large degree, this makes BigQuery useless when working with
> >> unbounded data (streaming pipelines). The bugs have been fixed (and
> >> accompanying tests added) in PRs #1651 and #1400.
> >>
> >> Conclusion: +0.8
> >>
> >> * 0.4.0-incubating RC3 is largely an improvement over 0.3.0-incubating,
> >> especially in the user getting started experience.
> >> * The bugs in BigQueryIO are blockers for BigQuery users, but this is
> >> likely a relatively small fraction of the Beam community. I would not
> >> retract RC3 based on this alone. Unless we plan to cut an RC4 for other
> >> reasons, we should move forward with RC3.
> >>
> >> I'd hope that we hear from key users of the Apex, Flink, and Spark
> runners
> >> before closing the vote, even though it's technically been 72+ hours. I
> >> suggest we wait to ensure they have an opportunity to chime in.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >> Appendix: pom.xml changes to use binary releases from Apache Staging:
> >>
> >>   <repositories>
> >>     <repository>
> >>       <id>apache.staging</id>
> >>       <name>Apache Development Staging Repository</name>
> >>       <url>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/
> >> </url>
> >>       <releases>
> >>         <enabled>true</enabled>
> >>       </releases>
> >>       <snapshots>
> >>         <enabled>false</enabled>
> >>       </snapshots>
> >>     </repository>
> >>   </repositories>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi guys,
> >>>
> >>> The good thing is that my issue to access repository.apache.org Nexus
> is
> >>> now fixed.
> >>>
> >>> To update the signature files, we have to drop the Nexus repository to
> >>> stage a new one,
> >>> meaning cancel the current vote to do a new RC4.
> >>>
> >>> I can do that, up to you.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, regarding the release content, +1 (binding).
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/18/2016 06:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Indeed -- I did help JB with the release ever so slightly, due to the
> >>>> networking connectivity issue reaching repository.apache.org, which
> JB
> >>>> further described and is tracked in INFRA-13086 [1]. This is not
> >>>> Beam-specific.
> >>>>
> >>>> The current signature shouldn't be a problem at all, but, since others
> >>>> are
> >>>> asking about it, I think it would be the best to simply re-sign the
> >>>> source
> >>>> .zip archive and continuing this vote. JB, what do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regarding the release itself, I think we need to keep raising the
> >>>> quality
> >>>> and maturity release-over-release, and test signals are an excellent
> way
> >>>> to
> >>>> demonstrate that. Due to the recent upgrades to Jenkins, usage of the
> >>>> DSL,
> >>>> etc. (thanks INFRA and Jason Kuster), we can now, for the first time,
> >>>> formally show that the release candidate clearly passes all Jenkins
> >>>> suites
> >>>> that we have:
> >>>> * All unit tests across the project, plus example ITs across all
> runners
> >>>> [2], [3].
> >>>> * All integration tests on the Apex runner [4].
> >>>> * All integration tests on the Flink runner [5].
> >>>> * All integration tests on the Spark runner [6].
> >>>> * All integration tests on the Dataflow runner [7].
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, I know of a few issues/regressions in the areas that are
> not
> >>>> well tested today. I think Dan Halperin has more context, so I'll let
> >>>> him
> >>>> speak of the details, and quote relevant JIRA issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> With the known issues in 0.3.0-incubating, such as trouble running
> >>>> examples
> >>>> out-of-the-box, I think this release candidate is a clear win. Of
> >>>> course,
> >>>> that may change if more issues are discovered.
> >>>>
> >>>> For me, this release candidate is +1 (at this time), contingent upon
> no
> >>>> known major issues affecting Apex, Flink and Spark runners.
> >>>>
> >>>> Davor
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13086
> >>>> [2]
> >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_
> >>>> MavenInstall/5994/
> >>>> [3]
> >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> >>>> _MavenInstall/2116/
> >>>> [4]
> >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> >>>> _RunnableOnService_Apex/10/
> >>>> [5]
> >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> >>>> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1120/
> >>>> [6]
> >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> >>>> _RunnableOnService_Spark/430/
> >>>> [7]
> >>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
> >>>> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/1830/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kenneth Knowles
> <klk@google.com.invalid
> >>>> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1, as long as it is fine for the release to be signed by a PMC member
> >>>>
> >>>>> other than the release manager. Otherwise need to replace the .asc
> >>>>> file.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Following [Apache release checklist](
> >>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list
> ):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1.1 Verified checksums & signature (Davor's)
> >>>>> 2.1 Ran unit tests and integration tests
> >>>>> 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct
> >>>>> 3.2 LICENSE & NOTICE are correct
> >>>>> 3.3 Files have license headers (RAT & checkstyle)
> >>>>> 3.4 Provenance is clear
> >>>>> 3.5 Dependencies license are legal (RAT) [2]
> >>>>> 3.6 Release contains source code, no binaries
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Additionally:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  - Went over the generated javadoc (filed tickets but no release
> >>>>> blockers)
> >>>>>  - Went over the generated release notes
> >>>>>  - Sanity checked the Maven Central artifacts
> >>>>>  - Confirmed that the git tag matches
> >>>>>  - Checked the website PR
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I heartily agree that the components would give much better context
> on
> >>>>> tickets. Even with that, our JIRA titles could use a lot of
> >>>>> improvement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> jb@nanthrax.net
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
> >>>>>> 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
> >>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
> >>>>>> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
> >>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> reference
> >>>>>
> >>>>> manual [5].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> majority
> >>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> >>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338590
> >>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-
> >>>>>> incubating/
> >>>>>> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> beam-1008/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git
> >>>>>> ;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
> >>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >>> jbonofre@apache.org
> >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > jbonofre@apache.org
> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >
>



-- 
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925 <+43%20660%202747925>
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Ismaël Mejía <ie...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)

- verified signatures + checksums
- run mvn clean verify -Prelease, all artifacts build and the tests run
smoothly

A new 0.4.1 release to include the BigQuery fix is a good idea, I think as
we approach graduation it is important that we define (if we haven't,
probably I just don't know) what issues are release blocker​s for future
releases and which issues can be fixed as minor patch versions.


On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:

> Thanks for the update Dan.
>
> I think we should move forward on this release as, as you said, we have
> important improvements compared to 0.3.0-incubating release.
> We can do a 0.4.1-incubating pretty soon to address the bigquery IO
> issues. I'm volunteer to do that.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 12/19/2016 09:21 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
>
>> I vetted the binary artifacts accompanying the release by running several
>> jobs on the Dataflow and Direct runners. At a high level, the release
>> looks
>> fine -- I ran some of my favorite jobs and they all worked swimmingly.
>>
>> There are some severe bugs in BigQueryIO in the release. Specifically, we
>> broke the ability to write to BigQuery using different tables for every
>> window. To a large degree, this makes BigQuery useless when working with
>> unbounded data (streaming pipelines). The bugs have been fixed (and
>> accompanying tests added) in PRs #1651 and #1400.
>>
>> Conclusion: +0.8
>>
>> * 0.4.0-incubating RC3 is largely an improvement over 0.3.0-incubating,
>> especially in the user getting started experience.
>> * The bugs in BigQueryIO are blockers for BigQuery users, but this is
>> likely a relatively small fraction of the Beam community. I would not
>> retract RC3 based on this alone. Unless we plan to cut an RC4 for other
>> reasons, we should move forward with RC3.
>>
>> I'd hope that we hear from key users of the Apex, Flink, and Spark runners
>> before closing the vote, even though it's technically been 72+ hours. I
>> suggest we wait to ensure they have an opportunity to chime in.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> Appendix: pom.xml changes to use binary releases from Apache Staging:
>>
>>   <repositories>
>>     <repository>
>>       <id>apache.staging</id>
>>       <name>Apache Development Staging Repository</name>
>>       <url>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/
>> </url>
>>       <releases>
>>         <enabled>true</enabled>
>>       </releases>
>>       <snapshots>
>>         <enabled>false</enabled>
>>       </snapshots>
>>     </repository>
>>   </repositories>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> The good thing is that my issue to access repository.apache.org Nexus is
>>> now fixed.
>>>
>>> To update the signature files, we have to drop the Nexus repository to
>>> stage a new one,
>>> meaning cancel the current vote to do a new RC4.
>>>
>>> I can do that, up to you.
>>>
>>> Anyway, regarding the release content, +1 (binding).
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/18/2016 06:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed -- I did help JB with the release ever so slightly, due to the
>>>> networking connectivity issue reaching repository.apache.org, which JB
>>>> further described and is tracked in INFRA-13086 [1]. This is not
>>>> Beam-specific.
>>>>
>>>> The current signature shouldn't be a problem at all, but, since others
>>>> are
>>>> asking about it, I think it would be the best to simply re-sign the
>>>> source
>>>> .zip archive and continuing this vote. JB, what do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the release itself, I think we need to keep raising the
>>>> quality
>>>> and maturity release-over-release, and test signals are an excellent way
>>>> to
>>>> demonstrate that. Due to the recent upgrades to Jenkins, usage of the
>>>> DSL,
>>>> etc. (thanks INFRA and Jason Kuster), we can now, for the first time,
>>>> formally show that the release candidate clearly passes all Jenkins
>>>> suites
>>>> that we have:
>>>> * All unit tests across the project, plus example ITs across all runners
>>>> [2], [3].
>>>> * All integration tests on the Apex runner [4].
>>>> * All integration tests on the Flink runner [5].
>>>> * All integration tests on the Spark runner [6].
>>>> * All integration tests on the Dataflow runner [7].
>>>>
>>>> That said, I know of a few issues/regressions in the areas that are not
>>>> well tested today. I think Dan Halperin has more context, so I'll let
>>>> him
>>>> speak of the details, and quote relevant JIRA issues.
>>>>
>>>> With the known issues in 0.3.0-incubating, such as trouble running
>>>> examples
>>>> out-of-the-box, I think this release candidate is a clear win. Of
>>>> course,
>>>> that may change if more issues are discovered.
>>>>
>>>> For me, this release candidate is +1 (at this time), contingent upon no
>>>> known major issues affecting Apex, Flink and Spark runners.
>>>>
>>>> Davor
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13086
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_
>>>> MavenInstall/5994/
>>>> [3]
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>> _MavenInstall/2116/
>>>> [4]
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>> _RunnableOnService_Apex/10/
>>>> [5]
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1120/
>>>> [6]
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>> _RunnableOnService_Spark/430/
>>>> [7]
>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>>> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/1830/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kenneth Knowles <klk@google.com.invalid
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1, as long as it is fine for the release to be signed by a PMC member
>>>>
>>>>> other than the release manager. Otherwise need to replace the .asc
>>>>> file.
>>>>>
>>>>> Following [Apache release checklist](
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list):
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.1 Verified checksums & signature (Davor's)
>>>>> 2.1 Ran unit tests and integration tests
>>>>> 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct
>>>>> 3.2 LICENSE & NOTICE are correct
>>>>> 3.3 Files have license headers (RAT & checkstyle)
>>>>> 3.4 Provenance is clear
>>>>> 3.5 Dependencies license are legal (RAT) [2]
>>>>> 3.6 Release contains source code, no binaries
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally:
>>>>>
>>>>>  - Went over the generated javadoc (filed tickets but no release
>>>>> blockers)
>>>>>  - Went over the generated release notes
>>>>>  - Sanity checked the Maven Central artifacts
>>>>>  - Confirmed that the git tag matches
>>>>>  - Checked the website PR
>>>>>
>>>>> I heartily agree that the components would give much better context on
>>>>> tickets. Even with that, our JIRA titles could use a lot of
>>>>> improvement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
>>>>>> 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>>>>>
>>>>>> reference
>>>>>
>>>>> manual [5].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338590
>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-
>>>>>> incubating/
>>>>>> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>>
>>>>>> beam-1008/
>>>>>
>>>>> [4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git
>>>>>> ;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Thanks for the update Dan.

I think we should move forward on this release as, as you said, we have 
important improvements compared to 0.3.0-incubating release.
We can do a 0.4.1-incubating pretty soon to address the bigquery IO 
issues. I'm volunteer to do that.

Regards
JB

On 12/19/2016 09:21 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
> I vetted the binary artifacts accompanying the release by running several
> jobs on the Dataflow and Direct runners. At a high level, the release looks
> fine -- I ran some of my favorite jobs and they all worked swimmingly.
>
> There are some severe bugs in BigQueryIO in the release. Specifically, we
> broke the ability to write to BigQuery using different tables for every
> window. To a large degree, this makes BigQuery useless when working with
> unbounded data (streaming pipelines). The bugs have been fixed (and
> accompanying tests added) in PRs #1651 and #1400.
>
> Conclusion: +0.8
>
> * 0.4.0-incubating RC3 is largely an improvement over 0.3.0-incubating,
> especially in the user getting started experience.
> * The bugs in BigQueryIO are blockers for BigQuery users, but this is
> likely a relatively small fraction of the Beam community. I would not
> retract RC3 based on this alone. Unless we plan to cut an RC4 for other
> reasons, we should move forward with RC3.
>
> I'd hope that we hear from key users of the Apex, Flink, and Spark runners
> before closing the vote, even though it's technically been 72+ hours. I
> suggest we wait to ensure they have an opportunity to chime in.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
>
> Appendix: pom.xml changes to use binary releases from Apache Staging:
>
>   <repositories>
>     <repository>
>       <id>apache.staging</id>
>       <name>Apache Development Staging Repository</name>
>       <url>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/</url>
>       <releases>
>         <enabled>true</enabled>
>       </releases>
>       <snapshots>
>         <enabled>false</enabled>
>       </snapshots>
>     </repository>
>   </repositories>
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> The good thing is that my issue to access repository.apache.org Nexus is
>> now fixed.
>>
>> To update the signature files, we have to drop the Nexus repository to
>> stage a new one,
>> meaning cancel the current vote to do a new RC4.
>>
>> I can do that, up to you.
>>
>> Anyway, regarding the release content, +1 (binding).
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2016 06:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed -- I did help JB with the release ever so slightly, due to the
>>> networking connectivity issue reaching repository.apache.org, which JB
>>> further described and is tracked in INFRA-13086 [1]. This is not
>>> Beam-specific.
>>>
>>> The current signature shouldn't be a problem at all, but, since others are
>>> asking about it, I think it would be the best to simply re-sign the source
>>> .zip archive and continuing this vote. JB, what do you think?
>>>
>>> Regarding the release itself, I think we need to keep raising the quality
>>> and maturity release-over-release, and test signals are an excellent way
>>> to
>>> demonstrate that. Due to the recent upgrades to Jenkins, usage of the DSL,
>>> etc. (thanks INFRA and Jason Kuster), we can now, for the first time,
>>> formally show that the release candidate clearly passes all Jenkins suites
>>> that we have:
>>> * All unit tests across the project, plus example ITs across all runners
>>> [2], [3].
>>> * All integration tests on the Apex runner [4].
>>> * All integration tests on the Flink runner [5].
>>> * All integration tests on the Spark runner [6].
>>> * All integration tests on the Dataflow runner [7].
>>>
>>> That said, I know of a few issues/regressions in the areas that are not
>>> well tested today. I think Dan Halperin has more context, so I'll let him
>>> speak of the details, and quote relevant JIRA issues.
>>>
>>> With the known issues in 0.3.0-incubating, such as trouble running
>>> examples
>>> out-of-the-box, I think this release candidate is a clear win. Of course,
>>> that may change if more issues are discovered.
>>>
>>> For me, this release candidate is +1 (at this time), contingent upon no
>>> known major issues affecting Apex, Flink and Spark runners.
>>>
>>> Davor
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13086
>>> [2]
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_
>>> MavenInstall/5994/
>>> [3]
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>> _MavenInstall/2116/
>>> [4]
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>> _RunnableOnService_Apex/10/
>>> [5]
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1120/
>>> [6]
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>> _RunnableOnService_Spark/430/
>>> [7]
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>>> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/1830/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1, as long as it is fine for the release to be signed by a PMC member
>>>> other than the release manager. Otherwise need to replace the .asc file.
>>>>
>>>> Following [Apache release checklist](
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list):
>>>>
>>>> 1.1 Verified checksums & signature (Davor's)
>>>> 2.1 Ran unit tests and integration tests
>>>> 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct
>>>> 3.2 LICENSE & NOTICE are correct
>>>> 3.3 Files have license headers (RAT & checkstyle)
>>>> 3.4 Provenance is clear
>>>> 3.5 Dependencies license are legal (RAT) [2]
>>>> 3.6 Release contains source code, no binaries
>>>>
>>>> Additionally:
>>>>
>>>>  - Went over the generated javadoc (filed tickets but no release
>>>> blockers)
>>>>  - Went over the generated release notes
>>>>  - Sanity checked the Maven Central artifacts
>>>>  - Confirmed that the git tag matches
>>>>  - Checked the website PR
>>>>
>>>> I heartily agree that the components would give much better context on
>>>> tickets. Even with that, our JIRA titles could use a lot of improvement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
>>>>> 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
>>>>> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>>>>
>>>> reference
>>>>
>>>>> manual [5].
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338590
>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-
>>>>> incubating/
>>>>> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>>
>>>> beam-1008/
>>>>
>>>>> [4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git
>>>>> ;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Dan Halperin <dh...@google.com.INVALID>.
I vetted the binary artifacts accompanying the release by running several
jobs on the Dataflow and Direct runners. At a high level, the release looks
fine -- I ran some of my favorite jobs and they all worked swimmingly.

There are some severe bugs in BigQueryIO in the release. Specifically, we
broke the ability to write to BigQuery using different tables for every
window. To a large degree, this makes BigQuery useless when working with
unbounded data (streaming pipelines). The bugs have been fixed (and
accompanying tests added) in PRs #1651 and #1400.

Conclusion: +0.8

* 0.4.0-incubating RC3 is largely an improvement over 0.3.0-incubating,
especially in the user getting started experience.
* The bugs in BigQueryIO are blockers for BigQuery users, but this is
likely a relatively small fraction of the Beam community. I would not
retract RC3 based on this alone. Unless we plan to cut an RC4 for other
reasons, we should move forward with RC3.

I'd hope that we hear from key users of the Apex, Flink, and Spark runners
before closing the vote, even though it's technically been 72+ hours. I
suggest we wait to ensure they have an opportunity to chime in.

Thanks,
Dan


Appendix: pom.xml changes to use binary releases from Apache Staging:

  <repositories>
    <repository>
      <id>apache.staging</id>
      <name>Apache Development Staging Repository</name>
      <url>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/</url>
      <releases>
        <enabled>true</enabled>
      </releases>
      <snapshots>
        <enabled>false</enabled>
      </snapshots>
    </repository>
  </repositories>

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> The good thing is that my issue to access repository.apache.org Nexus is
> now fixed.
>
> To update the signature files, we have to drop the Nexus repository to
> stage a new one,
> meaning cancel the current vote to do a new RC4.
>
> I can do that, up to you.
>
> Anyway, regarding the release content, +1 (binding).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 12/18/2016 06:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
>
>> Indeed -- I did help JB with the release ever so slightly, due to the
>> networking connectivity issue reaching repository.apache.org, which JB
>> further described and is tracked in INFRA-13086 [1]. This is not
>> Beam-specific.
>>
>> The current signature shouldn't be a problem at all, but, since others are
>> asking about it, I think it would be the best to simply re-sign the source
>> .zip archive and continuing this vote. JB, what do you think?
>>
>> Regarding the release itself, I think we need to keep raising the quality
>> and maturity release-over-release, and test signals are an excellent way
>> to
>> demonstrate that. Due to the recent upgrades to Jenkins, usage of the DSL,
>> etc. (thanks INFRA and Jason Kuster), we can now, for the first time,
>> formally show that the release candidate clearly passes all Jenkins suites
>> that we have:
>> * All unit tests across the project, plus example ITs across all runners
>> [2], [3].
>> * All integration tests on the Apex runner [4].
>> * All integration tests on the Flink runner [5].
>> * All integration tests on the Spark runner [6].
>> * All integration tests on the Dataflow runner [7].
>>
>> That said, I know of a few issues/regressions in the areas that are not
>> well tested today. I think Dan Halperin has more context, so I'll let him
>> speak of the details, and quote relevant JIRA issues.
>>
>> With the known issues in 0.3.0-incubating, such as trouble running
>> examples
>> out-of-the-box, I think this release candidate is a clear win. Of course,
>> that may change if more issues are discovered.
>>
>> For me, this release candidate is +1 (at this time), contingent upon no
>> known major issues affecting Apex, Flink and Spark runners.
>>
>> Davor
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13086
>> [2]
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_
>> MavenInstall/5994/
>> [3]
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>> _MavenInstall/2116/
>> [4]
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>> _RunnableOnService_Apex/10/
>> [5]
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1120/
>> [6]
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>> _RunnableOnService_Spark/430/
>> [7]
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
>> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/1830/
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> +1, as long as it is fine for the release to be signed by a PMC member
>>> other than the release manager. Otherwise need to replace the .asc file.
>>>
>>> Following [Apache release checklist](
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list):
>>>
>>> 1.1 Verified checksums & signature (Davor's)
>>> 2.1 Ran unit tests and integration tests
>>> 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct
>>> 3.2 LICENSE & NOTICE are correct
>>> 3.3 Files have license headers (RAT & checkstyle)
>>> 3.4 Provenance is clear
>>> 3.5 Dependencies license are legal (RAT) [2]
>>> 3.6 Release contains source code, no binaries
>>>
>>> Additionally:
>>>
>>>  - Went over the generated javadoc (filed tickets but no release
>>> blockers)
>>>  - Went over the generated release notes
>>>  - Sanity checked the Maven Central artifacts
>>>  - Confirmed that the git tag matches
>>>  - Checked the website PR
>>>
>>> I heartily agree that the components would give much better context on
>>> tickets. Even with that, our JIRA titles could use a lot of improvement.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
>>>> 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
>>>> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>>>
>>> reference
>>>
>>>> manual [5].
>>>>
>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338590
>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-
>>>> incubating/
>>>> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>>>
>>> beam-1008/
>>>
>>>> [4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git
>>>> ;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi guys,

The good thing is that my issue to access repository.apache.org Nexus is now fixed.

To update the signature files, we have to drop the Nexus repository to stage a new one,
meaning cancel the current vote to do a new RC4.

I can do that, up to you.

Anyway, regarding the release content, +1 (binding).

Regards
JB

On 12/18/2016 06:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> Indeed -- I did help JB with the release ever so slightly, due to the
> networking connectivity issue reaching repository.apache.org, which JB
> further described and is tracked in INFRA-13086 [1]. This is not
> Beam-specific.
>
> The current signature shouldn't be a problem at all, but, since others are
> asking about it, I think it would be the best to simply re-sign the source
> .zip archive and continuing this vote. JB, what do you think?
>
> Regarding the release itself, I think we need to keep raising the quality
> and maturity release-over-release, and test signals are an excellent way to
> demonstrate that. Due to the recent upgrades to Jenkins, usage of the DSL,
> etc. (thanks INFRA and Jason Kuster), we can now, for the first time,
> formally show that the release candidate clearly passes all Jenkins suites
> that we have:
> * All unit tests across the project, plus example ITs across all runners
> [2], [3].
> * All integration tests on the Apex runner [4].
> * All integration tests on the Flink runner [5].
> * All integration tests on the Spark runner [6].
> * All integration tests on the Dataflow runner [7].
>
> That said, I know of a few issues/regressions in the areas that are not
> well tested today. I think Dan Halperin has more context, so I'll let him
> speak of the details, and quote relevant JIRA issues.
>
> With the known issues in 0.3.0-incubating, such as trouble running examples
> out-of-the-box, I think this release candidate is a clear win. Of course,
> that may change if more issues are discovered.
>
> For me, this release candidate is +1 (at this time), contingent upon no
> known major issues affecting Apex, Flink and Spark runners.
>
> Davor
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13086
> [2]
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/5994/
> [3]
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInstall/2116/
> [4]
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Apex/10/
> [5]
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Flink/1120/
> [6]
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Spark/430/
> [7]
> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Dataflow/1830/
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> +1, as long as it is fine for the release to be signed by a PMC member
>> other than the release manager. Otherwise need to replace the .asc file.
>>
>> Following [Apache release checklist](
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list):
>>
>> 1.1 Verified checksums & signature (Davor's)
>> 2.1 Ran unit tests and integration tests
>> 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct
>> 3.2 LICENSE & NOTICE are correct
>> 3.3 Files have license headers (RAT & checkstyle)
>> 3.4 Provenance is clear
>> 3.5 Dependencies license are legal (RAT) [2]
>> 3.6 Release contains source code, no binaries
>>
>> Additionally:
>>
>>  - Went over the generated javadoc (filed tickets but no release blockers)
>>  - Went over the generated release notes
>>  - Sanity checked the Maven Central artifacts
>>  - Confirmed that the git tag matches
>>  - Checked the website PR
>>
>> I heartily agree that the components would give much better context on
>> tickets. Even with that, our JIRA titles could use a lot of improvement.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofr� <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
>>> 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
>>> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>> reference
>>> manual [5].
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338590
>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-
>>> incubating/
>>> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>> beam-1008/
>>> [4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git
>>> ;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofr�
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org>.
Indeed -- I did help JB with the release ever so slightly, due to the
networking connectivity issue reaching repository.apache.org, which JB
further described and is tracked in INFRA-13086 [1]. This is not
Beam-specific.

The current signature shouldn't be a problem at all, but, since others are
asking about it, I think it would be the best to simply re-sign the source
.zip archive and continuing this vote. JB, what do you think?

Regarding the release itself, I think we need to keep raising the quality
and maturity release-over-release, and test signals are an excellent way to
demonstrate that. Due to the recent upgrades to Jenkins, usage of the DSL,
etc. (thanks INFRA and Jason Kuster), we can now, for the first time,
formally show that the release candidate clearly passes all Jenkins suites
that we have:
* All unit tests across the project, plus example ITs across all runners
[2], [3].
* All integration tests on the Apex runner [4].
* All integration tests on the Flink runner [5].
* All integration tests on the Spark runner [6].
* All integration tests on the Dataflow runner [7].

That said, I know of a few issues/regressions in the areas that are not
well tested today. I think Dan Halperin has more context, so I'll let him
speak of the details, and quote relevant JIRA issues.

With the known issues in 0.3.0-incubating, such as trouble running examples
out-of-the-box, I think this release candidate is a clear win. Of course,
that may change if more issues are discovered.

For me, this release candidate is +1 (at this time), contingent upon no
known major issues affecting Apex, Flink and Spark runners.

Davor

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13086
[2]
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/5994/
[3]
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInstall/2116/
[4]
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Apex/10/
[5]
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Flink/1120/
[6]
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Spark/430/
[7]
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableOnService_Dataflow/1830/


On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.invalid>
wrote:

> +1, as long as it is fine for the release to be signed by a PMC member
> other than the release manager. Otherwise need to replace the .asc file.
>
> Following [Apache release checklist](
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list):
>
> 1.1 Verified checksums & signature (Davor's)
> 2.1 Ran unit tests and integration tests
> 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct
> 3.2 LICENSE & NOTICE are correct
> 3.3 Files have license headers (RAT & checkstyle)
> 3.4 Provenance is clear
> 3.5 Dependencies license are legal (RAT) [2]
> 3.6 Release contains source code, no binaries
>
> Additionally:
>
>  - Went over the generated javadoc (filed tickets but no release blockers)
>  - Went over the generated release notes
>  - Sanity checked the Maven Central artifacts
>  - Confirmed that the git tag matches
>  - Checked the website PR
>
> I heartily agree that the components would give much better context on
> tickets. Even with that, our JIRA titles could use a lot of improvement.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
> > 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
> > * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
> > * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
> reference
> > manual [5].
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> > approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> > ctId=12319527&version=12338590
> > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-
> > incubating/
> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
> beam-1008/
> > [4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git
> > ;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
> > [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0-incubating, release candidate #3

Posted by Kenneth Knowles <kl...@google.com.INVALID>.
+1, as long as it is fine for the release to be signed by a PMC member
other than the release manager. Otherwise need to replace the .asc file.

Following [Apache release checklist](
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list):

1.1 Verified checksums & signature (Davor's)
2.1 Ran unit tests and integration tests
3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct
3.2 LICENSE & NOTICE are correct
3.3 Files have license headers (RAT & checkstyle)
3.4 Provenance is clear
3.5 Dependencies license are legal (RAT) [2]
3.6 Release contains source code, no binaries

Additionally:

 - Went over the generated javadoc (filed tickets but no release blockers)
 - Went over the generated release notes
 - Sanity checked the Maven Central artifacts
 - Confirmed that the git tag matches
 - Checked the website PR

I heartily agree that the components would give much better context on
tickets. Even with that, our JIRA titles could use a lot of improvement.


On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version
> 0.4.0-incubating, 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],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4],
> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API reference
> manual [5].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> Regards
> JB
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> ctId=12319527&version=12338590
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0-
> incubating/
> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1008/
> [4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git
> ;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4
> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109
>