Thanks for being so thorough :). This is fine (except the -bin prefix
mentioned in the email template). Good eye. The "-bin" prefix was removed
compared to the Airflow release, because we do not have separate src vs.
bin releases for providers (I will fix it for the next time).
For the providers package we implemented the task to separate the source
package for each provider because we have different versions for each
package. So we do not have separate "sources". Actually it was a very
simple task - the .tar.gz files ('sdist') serve both as "official sources"
and an installable "sdist" package.
We discussed it with Kaxil and Ash and came up to the conclusion that sdist
packages fulfill all the criteria for "sources" as mentioned here:
https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain
.
- it contains complete sources enough to build the provider packages by the
users (having access to appropriate platform and tools)
- it is checksummed and signed cryptographically
- it is tested if it installs properly for airflow (part of the release
procedure is to install all the packages being released)
This is what the sentence from the email means:
> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
provider packages."
FYI. For backports we still have the separate src-* package. The main
reason is historical/refactoring - we converted the sources on-the-flight
with refactoring and we released them all with the same "calver" version.
In the backport providers sdist we have the modified (automatically
generated) code not the source. So having a separate source package from
which the backports were generated as "official" sources matching the git
tag makes much more sense.
I hope it clarifies the issue.
J.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 8:35 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <turbas...@apache.org> wrote:
> According to SVN check step there should be 36 (4 x 9) files. I see all
> whl files but instead of:
>
> -bin-tar.gz + .asc + .sha512 (one set of files per provider)
> I see:
> -tar.gz + .asc + .sha512
>
> And no source.tar.gz + .asc + .sha512 (one set of files) [unless we count
> the ones from backports).
>
> Is this a problem with verification step or do we miss something?
>
> Apart from that I verified license and checksums and all are ok.
>
> Tomek
>
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 23:52, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> Verified License, signatures and checksums.
>>
>> Checked changelogs for all the providers -- looks reasonable.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kaxil
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 8:13 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I also created issue where I track the test progress by the contributors
>>> who provided the fixes: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/14670
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:04 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>
>>>> I have just cut the new wave Airflow Providers packages. This email is
>>>> calling a vote on the release,
>>>> which will last for 72 hours - which means that it will end on Thu 11
>>>> Mar 20:57:45 CET 2021.
>>>>
>>>> This release contains for providers (rc2) that were skipped in the
>>>> release from last week due to bugs found/new releases of dependent
>>>> libraries:
>>>>
>>>> * apache.beam
>>>> * apache.druid
>>>> * microsoft.azure
>>>> * snowflake
>>>>
>>>> Consider this my (binding) +1.
>>>>
>>>> Airflow Providers are available at:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/
>>>>
>>>> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*-bin.tar.gz* are the binary
>>>> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the
>>>> provider packages.
>>>>
>>>> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary
>>>> Python "wheel" release.
>>>>
>>>> The test procedure for PMC members who would like to test the RC
>>>> candidates are described in
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/master/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-by-pmc-members
>>>>
>>>> and for Contributors:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/master/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-by-contributors
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Public keys are available at:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> Please vote accordingly:
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the community
>>>> are
>>>> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)".
>>>>
>>>> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string.
>>>> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying
>>>> the artifact checksums when we actually release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Each of the packages contains a link to the detailed changelog. The
>>>> changelogs are moved to the official airflow documentation:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow-site/tree/add-documentation-2021-03-08
>>>>
>>>> Note the links to documentation from PyPI packages are not working
>>>> until we merge
>>>> the changes to airflow site after releasing the packages officially.
>>>>
>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-apache-beam/1.0.1rc2/
>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-apache-druid/1.1.0rc2/
>>>>
>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-microsoft-azure/1.2.0rc2/
>>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-snowflake/1.1.1rc2/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> J.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> +48 660 796 129
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> +48 660 796 129
>>>
>>
--
+48 660 796 129
