-1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On 02/02/2017 10:47 AM, Dan Halperin wrote:
From the release guide, I was under the impression that the release manager
is free to cancel once an issue is discovered. Canceling is not a release,
so should not require a specific number of -1s. See [0]
That said, -1 to 0.5.0-RC1 because of the regression in Flink and perhaps
other runners.
[0]
https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/index.html#vote-on-the-release-candidate
"If there are any issues found in the release candidate, reply on the vote
thread to cancel the vote. There’s no need to wait 72 hours."
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Hi Ken,
agree.
I'm waiting for other -1 to formally cancel the vote.
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On 02/02/2017 04:11 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
Unless there is a strenuous objection, I think we should roll forwards
with
a surgical "revert" of just the relevant logic, as in
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1901
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote:
The revert is actually quite complex internally. I think there might be a
~5 line roll forward, since the lost functionality was pretty trivial.
I'll
give it a quick try, as it will be worth it if it works out.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
wrote:
I opened this PR with three revert commits:
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1883
I also started PostCommit runs for this:
-
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
_MavenInstall/2486/
-
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
_RunnableOnService_Flink/1493/
-
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
_RunnableOnService_Spark/803/
-
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
_RunnableOnService_Apex/
(still
waiting in queue as of writing)
-
https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java
_RunnableOnService_Dataflow/
(still
waiting in queue as of writing)
I think the MavenInstall hooks fail because the (Google-internal)
Dataflow
Runner Harness doesn't work with the changed code, though I'm only
guessing
here.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 21:26 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
wrote:
Agreed, since it's a regression. Let's hope that the transitive closure
of
"revert those two commits" doesn't get to large.
I'll checkout the release-0.5.0 branch and see where we get with
reverting.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 19:28 Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid>
wrote:
I agree. -1 and let's do the smartest thing to undo the regression.
Those two commits are not sufficient to restore late data dropping.
You'll
also need to revert the switch of the Flink runner to use new DoFn,
maybe
more.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net
wrote:
Basically, my question is: is it a regression ? If yes, definitely a -1
and we should cancel the release.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the commits in the
LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
introduced a regression. So, I would cancel this vote and revert the
two
commits for RC2.
WDYT ?
Regards
JB
On 01/31/2017 07:13 PM, Dan Halperin wrote:
Should we revert the CLs that lost the functionality? I'd really not
like
to ship a release with such a functional regression....
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Fair enough. Let's do that.
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On 01/31/2017 06:58 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
I'm not sure. Poperly fixing this will take some time, especially
since
we
have to add tests to prevent breakage from happening in the future.
Plus,
if my analysis is correct other runners might also not have proper
late
data dropping and it's fine to have a release with some missing
features.
(There's more besides dropping.)
I think we should go ahead and fix for 0.6.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 18:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Hi Aljoscha,
so you propose to cancel this vote to prepare a RC2 ?
Regards
JB
On 01/31/2017 05:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
It's not just an issue with the Flink Runner, if I'm not mistaken.
Flink had late-data dropping via the LateDataDroppingDoFnRunner
(which
got
"disabled" by the two commits I mention in the issue) while I think
that
the Apex and Spark Runners might not have had dropping in the
first
place.
(Not sure about this last part.)
As I now wrote to the issue I think this could be a blocker
because
we
don't have the correct output in some cases.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 02:16 Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org>
wrote:
It looks good to me, but let's hear Aljoscha's opinion on
BEAM-1346.
A passing suite of Jenkins jobs:
* https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInsta
ll/6870/
* https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_MavenInst
all/2474/
*
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
nService_Apex/336/
*
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
nService_Flink/1470/
*
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
nService_Spark/786/
*
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PostCommit_Java_RunnableO
nService_Dataflow/2130/
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan Halperin <dhalp...@apache.org
wrote:
I am worried about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1346
for
RC1
and would at least wait for resolution there before proceeding.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
j...@nanthrax.net
wrote:
Good catch for the PPMC, I'm upgrading the email template in the
release
guide (it was a copy/paste).
Regards
JB
On 01/30/2017 11:50 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
+1 (non-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)
Two minor comments that do not block the release:
* Usually I like to see the commit id referencing the rc,
since
git
tags
can be changed.
* Just a formality, "PPMC" is not committee that plays a role
anymore,
you're a PMC now ;-)
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
version
0.5.0
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], which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76
[3],
* all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
[4],
* source code tag "v0.5.0-RC1" [5],
* website pull request listing the release and publishing the
API
reference manual [6].
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
majority
approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
Thanks,
JB
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira
/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
ctId=12319527&version=12338859
[2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.5.0/
[3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
[4] https://repository.apache.org/
content/repositories/orgapache
beam-1010/
[5] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/
repos/asf?p=beam.git;a=tag;h=r
efs/tags/v0.5.0-RC1
[6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/132
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
