Sounds good! :) On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with the assessment. Let’s not rush and make sure both issues are > properly fixed or understood (in case of Alex’) > > I will leave the vote at the IPMC open for another 10 hours or so, just to > get some more reviews hopefully on the licensing part. > > - Bolke > > > On 23 Feb 2017, at 22:53, Dan Davydov <dan.davy...@airbnb.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > To expand on Max's point it doesn't concern me that this is a blocker for > > AirBnB, but it's not logical behavior and I'm sure many companies rely on > > the previous behavior (which I would say is the logically correct one). > We > > are already running a fork of the release internally so we are > unaffected, > > I'm more concerned about: > > a) Airflow 1.8.0 having a huge issue/regression in behavior that causes a > > lot of companies to revert or patch after upgrading. > > b) An illogical change being made in Airflow that makes the behavior > > non-intuitive. > > > > Here are my PRs to fix the various issues (we might as well merge all of > > them in the next RC if we have one): > > Here is the fix for the dagruns ending prematurely: https://github. > > com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2099 > > > > Here is the fix for dagruns in a bad state crashing the UI (not a blocker > > but might as well include it in the next RC if we create one): > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2094 > > > > Black Squares in UI: No fix yet (will try to work on one shortly) but > it's > > not a blocker. > > > > Double Trigger Issue That Alex G Mentioned: We have been seeing tasks in > > the running state get run by another worker almost exactly 1 hour after > > they start running. Double triggers are pretty unacceptable in Airflow, > but > > I'm not counting this as a blocker because I don't fully understand what > it > > is happening but it is still pretty scary. Internally we have a patch > that > > mitigates this to some degree but Alex G is still investigating. > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I’m not particularly against another RC. On the IPMC there were some > >> issues mentioned regarding licensing, which probably are blocking as > well > >> (eg. no LICENSE etc in the tar ball). I found some HighCharts left > overs as > >> well, while addressing the licensing issues. PR here: > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2098 < > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2098> , will be merged > >> shortly. > >> > >> I just hope we can get our own vote to pass quickly(!) and not have > >> another last minute blocker :P. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Bolke > >> > >>> On 23 Feb 2017, at 22:41, Maxime Beauchemin < > maximebeauche...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> IMHO 1 is a blocker. The other issues could have been mitigated but 1 > is > >> a > >>> dealbreaker for Airbnb. We have lots of large, critical DAGs that would > >> be > >>> in a standstill because of individual task failures, where in reality a > >> lot > >>> of progress can be made. > >>> > >>> Airflow should really do as much work as possible and honor the > >>> dependencies specified by the user before giving up and requiring > >>> intervention. > >>> > >>> Max > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Chris Riccomini < > criccom...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> My 2c: > >>>> > >>>> I observed both #1 and #2 in Dan's list. I figured y'all had had a > >>>> discussion about the change in behavior. :) In any case, I made my > peace > >>>> with it, and we've been running happily in production for weeks now, > so > >> I > >>>> personally don't see it as a blocker. Obviously, if it's an issue for > >> you > >>>> guys at AirBNB, a patch and merge to master is critical, but I still > >> think > >>>> we should fix this stuff as part of 1.8.1. > >>>> > >>>> One compelling counter argument to this is that there's a bit of > >> whiplash > >>>> in terms of behavior, where 1.7.1.* behaves one way, then 1.8.0 > behaves > >>>> another, then 1.8.1 goes back to the old way again. I guess I'm just > not > >>>> that worried about it. > >>>> > >>>> Anyway.. take it or leave it. :) > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Chris > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Gotcha. Will be patient. Good luck. > >>>>> > >>>>> Bolke > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 23 Feb 2017, at 21:12, Dan Davydov <dan.davy...@airbnb.com. > >> INVALID> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here is an example for 1, you can see that there are some white > tasks > >>>>> that should have been run. I don't have time to create a skeleton DAG > >> at > >>>>> the moment unfortunately because of release-related firefighting. > Will > >>>>> hopefully post back here later once firefighting is done. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:bdbr...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>>>> Hey Dan, Alex, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Indeed #1 seems serious, specifically the the second part - skipping > >>>> the > >>>>> root task (root task of the whole DAG?). Do you have a skeleton DAG > >> that > >>>>> exposes the issue? Is there a root cause analysis? When was the issue > >>>>> introduced? On the the issue Alex mentioned, we don’t see that and I > >>>> cannot > >>>>> really align the description of the issue with the PR yet, ie. I need > >>>>> clarification. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Obviously, I’m not very happy if we indeed need to retract the > release > >>>>> as we are ~12 hours away from closing of the vote at the IPMC > >> mailinglist > >>>>> (strangely enough no one has voted yet). However, if it is that > serious > >>>>> that it cannot wait for 1.8.1 then we need to do it. I would define > >>>>> “serious” as many people are going to be affected by it and they will > >> not > >>>>> have a workaround available to them (ie. patching code or database), > >> but > >>>>> the opinion of the community might differ. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>> Bolke > >>>>>> > >>>>>> P.S. I am also interested in #3, as it sounds like a integrity issue > >>>>> (which verify_integrity should catch) but also maybe too strong a > >>>>> assumption that such a task should exist (ie. a task was added to a > Dag > >>>> in > >>>>> a later stage). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2017, at 20:15, Dan Davydov <dan.davy...@airbnb.com > >>>> <mailto: > >>>>> dan.davy...@airbnb.com>.INVALID> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Some more issues found by our users in addition to the one Alex > >>>>> reported > >>>>>>> and the UI issue when a dagrun doesn't have a start date: > >>>>>>> 1. If a task fails it fails the whole dagrun immediately fails, > this > >>>>> is a > >>>>>>> very large change to how control flow works as the rest of the > tasks > >>>>> in the > >>>>>>> DAG are not run (even e.g. leaf tasks). The same is true of the > >>>> skipped > >>>>>>> status (if a leaf task is skipped then the root task for the DAG > will > >>>>> get > >>>>>>> skipped and none of the other tasks in the DAG will run). > >>>>>>> 2. The black squares in the UI for tasks that aren't ready to run > yet > >>>>> are > >>>>>>> confusing and make it hard for users to see which tasks haven't run > >>>> yet > >>>>>>> (lower contrast). We should never initialize tasks in the DB that > do > >>>>> not > >>>>>>> have a state (or at the least these should be white). > >>>>>>> 3. The Dagrun has a get_task_instance method that will fail if a > >>>> dagrun > >>>>>>> doesn't have a copy of a task instance created which we have seen > >>>>> happen > >>>>>>> for some DAGs. This prevents those tasks from getting scheduled. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I already patched 3 (and have a PR in flight for open source), and > am > >>>>>>> working on a patch for 1 internally. 1 should be a blocker for > >>>>> releasing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Alex Guziel < > alex.guz...@airbnb.com > >>>>> <mailto:alex.guz...@airbnb.com>.invalid > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I have some concern that this change > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/1939 < > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/1939> > >>>>>>>> [AIRFLOW-679] may be having issues because we are seeing lots of > >>>>> double > >>>>>>>> triggers > >>>>>>>> of tasks and tasks being killed as a result. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 4:35 PM, Dan Davydov > >>>>> dan.davy...@airbnb.com.INVALID > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Bumping the thread so another user can comment. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Maxime Beauchemin < > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> maximebeauche...@gmail.com <mailto:maximebeauche...@gmail.com>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What I meant to ask is "how much engineering effort it takes to > >>>> bake > >>>>> a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> single RC?", I guess it depends on how much git-fu is necessary > >>>> plus > >>>>> some > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> overhead cost of doing the series of > actions/commands/emails/jira. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I can volunteer for 1.8.1 (hopefully I can get do it along > another > >>>>> Airbnb > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> engineer/volunteer to tag along) and will try to > document/automate > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> everything I can as I go through the process. The goal of 1.8.1 > >>>>> could be > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> basically package 1.8.0 + Dan's bugfix, and for Airbnb to get > >>>>> familiar > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> the process. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It'd be great if you can dump your whole process on the wiki, and > >>>>> we'll > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> improve it on this next pass. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks again for the mountain of work that went into packaging > this > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> release. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Max > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Bolke de Bruin < > bdbr...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:bdbr...@gmail.com>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I thought you volunteered to baby sit 1.8.1 Chris ;-)? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Feb 2017, at 23:31, Chris Riccomini < > criccom...@apache.org > >>>>> <mailto:criccom...@apache.org>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 for doing a 1.8.1 fast follow-on > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Maxime Beauchemin < > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> maximebeauche...@gmail.com <mailto:maximebeauche...@gmail.com > >> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Our database may have edge cases that could be associated with > >>>>>>>> running > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> previous version that may or may not have been part of an > >>>> official > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> release. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see if anyone else reports the issue. If no one does, > one > >>>>>>>> option > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> to release 1.8.0 as is with a comment in the release notes, > and > >>>>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> future official minor apache release 1.8.1 that would fix > these > >>>>>>>> minor > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> issues that are not deal breaker. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> @bolke, I'm curious, how long does it take you to go through > one > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> cycle? Oh, and do you have a documented step by step process > for > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> releasing? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to add the Pypi part to this doc and add committers > >>>> that > >>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> interested to have rights on the project on Pypi. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Max > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Bolke de Bruin < > >>>>> bdbr...@gmail.com <mailto:bdbr...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So it is a database integrity issue? Afaik a start_date > should > >>>>>>>> always > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> set for a DagRun (create_dagrun) does so I didn't check the > >>>> code > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> though. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Feb 2017, at 22:19, Dan Davydov < > dan.davy...@airbnb.com > >>>>> <mailto:dan.davy...@airbnb.com>. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> INVALID> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should clarify this occurs when a dagrun does not have a > start > >>>>>>>> date, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dag (which makes it even less likely to happen). I don't > think > >>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocker for releasing. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Dan Davydov < > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> dan.davy...@airbnb.com <mailto:dan.davy...@airbnb.com> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I rolled this out in our prod and the webservers failed to > >>>> load > >>>>>>>> due > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this commit: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [AIRFLOW-510] Filter Paused Dags, show Last Run & Trigger > Dag > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7c94d81c390881643f94d5e3d7d6fb351a445b72 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This fixed it: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - </a> <span id="statuses_info" > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign" aria-hidden="true" > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> title="Start > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {{last_run.start_date.strftime('%Y-%m-%d > %H:%M')}}"></span> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + </a> <span id="statuses_info" > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class="glyphicon glyphicon-info-sign" > >>>>> aria-hidden="true"></span> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is caused by assuming that all DAGs have start dates > >>>> set, > >>>>>>>> so a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> broken > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAG will take down the whole UI. Not sure if we want to > make > >>>>>>>> this a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> blocker > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the release or not, I'm guessing for most deployments > >>>> this > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> occur > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty rarely. I'll submit a PR to fix it soon. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Chris Riccomini < > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> criccom...@apache.org <mailto:criccom...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ack that the vote has already passed, but belated +1 > >>>> (binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Bolke de Bruin < > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> bdbr...@gmail.com <mailto:bdbr...@gmail.com>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPMC Voting can be found here: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator- > >>>> general/ > >>>>> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 201702.mbox/% > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3c676bdc9f-1b55-4469-92a7-9ff309ad0...@gmail.com > <mailto: > >>>>> 3c676bdc9f-1b55-4469-92a7-9ff309ad0...@gmail.com>%3e < > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator- > >>>> general/ > >>>>> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 201702.mbox/% > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3c676bdc9f-1b55-4469-92a7-9ff309ad0...@gmail.com > <mailto: > >>>>> 3c676bdc9f-1b55-4469-92a7-9ff309ad0...@gmail.com>%3E> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bolke > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Feb 2017, at 08:20, Bolke de Bruin < > >>>> bdbr...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:bdbr...@gmail.com>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Airflow (incubating) 1.8.0 (based on RC4) has > been > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> accepted. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9 “+1” votes received: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Maxime Beauchemin (binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Arthur Wiedmer (binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Dan Davydov (binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jeremiah Lowin (binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Siddharth Anand (binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Alex van Boxel (binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Bolke de Bruin (binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jayesh Senjaliya (non-binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Yi (non-binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vote thread (start): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator- < > >>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> airflow-dev/201702.mbox/%3cD360D9BE-C358-42A1-9188- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6c92c31a2...@gmail.com <mailto:6c92c31a2...@gmail.com > >%3e > >>>> < > >>>>> http://mail-archives.apache <http://mail-archives.apache/>. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org/mod_mbox/incubator-airflow-dev/201702.mbox/% > >>>> 3C7EB7B6D6- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 092E-48D2-AA0F- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15f44376a...@gmail.com <mailto:15f44376a...@gmail.com > >%3E> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Next steps: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) will start the voting process at the IPMC > mailinglist. > >>>> I > >>>>> do > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> expect > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some changes to be required mostly in documentation > maybe a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> license > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> here > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and there. So, we might end up with changes to stable. As > >>>>> long > >>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> these > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not (significant) code changes I will not re-raise the > >>>> vote. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Only after the positive voting on the IPMC and > >>>>>>>> finalisation I > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebrand the RC to Release. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) I will upload it to the incubator release page, then > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> tar > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ball > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to propagate to the mirrors. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Update the website (can someone volunteer please?) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Finally, I will ask Maxime to upload it to pypi. It > >>>> seems > >>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the apache branding as lib cloud is doing this as well ( > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://libcloud.apache.org/downloads.html#pypi-package > < > >>>>> https://libcloud.apache.org/downloads.html#pypi-package> < > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://libcloud.apache.org/downloads.html#pypi-package > < > >>>>> https://libcloud.apache.org/downloads.html#pypi-package>>). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jippie! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bolke > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
