Yes I think so. Bolke
Sent from my iPhone > On 1 Aug 2017, at 00:59, Maxime Beauchemin <maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Alright so here's the INSTALL file: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2492 > > I'm thinking I'll cherry pick this in the 1.8-test branch and tar the whole > repo, crank up the RC number and publish to the same location as before. > > Am I on the right track? > > Max > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Chris Riccomini <criccom...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Oky.. then I guess we can address the feedback above. Owe you some beers, >> Max. >> >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Yep >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 27 Jul 2017, at 19:00, Maxime Beauchemin < >> maximebeauche...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I need to re-package it with build instructions. I'm pretty sure this >>> means >>>> another vote. I have time carved up to work on this today/tomorrow. >>>> >>>> Max >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Chris Riccomini < >> criccom...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> IMO, given the level of effort for 1.8.2, and how long it's taken, we >>>>> should not be re-voting right now unless something horrific happened >> to >>> the >>>>> release. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Pavel Martynov <mr.xk...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, folks! >>>>>> >>>>>> AIRFLOW-935 issue marked as resolved and fix version is 1.8.2, but >> this >>>>>> commit contained in master branch only and not tagged by 1.8.2rc2. >>>>>> Can fix of this issue be released in 1.8.2? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-07-26 2:27 GMT+03:00 George Leslie-Waksman < >>>>>> geo...@cloverhealth.com.invalid>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've checked and we are no longer relying on the previous >>>>>>> LatestOnlyOperator behavior for any of our DAGs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not a dealbreaker (though I will need to keep it in mind). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for asking, >>>>>>> --George >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM Maxime Beauchemin < >>>>>>> maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [AIRFLOW-1296] is part of 1.8.2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this a dealbreaker for 1.8.2? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Max >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:40 PM, George Leslie-Waksman < >>>>>>>> geo...@cloverhealth.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hope that it's not too late for me to chime in but there is a >>>>>>> breaking >>>>>>>>> change in the behavior of LatestOnlyOperator. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The change was introduced in >>>>>>>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2365 >>>>>>>>> Change: 333e0b3 [AIRFLOW-1296] Propagate SKIPPED to all downstream >>>>>>> tasks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Prior to this change, the LatestOnlyOperator would skip direct >>>>>>> downstream >>>>>>>>> but not indirect downstream; now it skips indirect downstream. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This breaks the use of LatestOnlyOperator with TriggerRules that >> do >>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> propagate skips. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --George >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:08 PM Maxime Beauchemin < >>>>>>>>> maximebeauche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think I'm gathering a good picture of what is expected here. >>>>> I'll >>>>>>> try >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> update the Confluence page as I go. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping to get started tomorrow and package it early next >>>>> week. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Max >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 6:16 PM, siddharth anand < >>>>>> san...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> FYI, can anyone pictorially describe the release process (and >>>>>> post >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>> the apache airflow wiki)? I think that would eliminate a lot of >>>>>>>>> confusion >>>>>>>>>>> in the future and avoid a rehash of this email thread on the >>>>> next >>>>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -s >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Hitesh Shah < >>>>> hit...@apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To add, the main source tarball should have instructions to >>>>>>>> generate >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> sdist and bdist versions. Additionally, as part of the >>>>> release >>>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>> the plan is to publish to pypi (after the IPMC vote >>>>> succeeds), >>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate bits also need to be verified/voted upon. There >>>>> are >>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> exactly >>>>>>>>>>>> counted as the official release bits but they do need to be >>>>>>>> verified >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> part of the voting process to ensure that the bits do indeed >>>>>> map >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> source release, license/notice files are correct, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Hitesh >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Bolke de Bruin < >>>>>>>> bdbr...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Hitesh. We discussed it with John Ament on the IPMC. >>>>>>>> Python >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> notion of 3 types of distributions, “source”, “sdist”, >>>>>> “bdist”, >>>>>>>>>>> contrary >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> Java that knows only two (source, bdist). We used to vote >>>>> on >>>>>>>>> “sdist”, >>>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>>>> was deemed incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, Max, indeed we need to vote on a tar.gz that contains >>>>>> build >>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions in INSTALL to get to “sdist”. The build >>>>>>> instructions >>>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>>> also contain instruction how to run the license checks by >>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>> Rat. >>>>>>>>>>>> Most >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the work probably goes in the build instructions and >>>>>>> verifying >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>> work, but it should not be much. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any other clarification required? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bolke >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> with best regards, Pavel Martynov >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>