+1 (binding) then, thanks for explaining!
Tomek
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 21:06, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> 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
>
