This vote is now complete. I'll summarize the results and next steps in a separate thread.
Thank you all for the comments and help. Ahmet On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > Thank you for the comments. > > Added the LICENSE and NOTICE files to the python ZIP file (also updates, > hashes and signature.) Will add this to the release guide as well. If > everyone is comfortable with this change I will proceed. > > Thank you, > Ahmet > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Davor Bonaci <da...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Contingent on adding NOTICE and LICENSE files into >> "apache-beam-0.6.0-python.zip", just as they are present in the >> "apache-beam-0.6.0-source-release.zip". >> >> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 (binding) >> > >> > - verified release signature and hashes >> > - mvn install -Prelease runs smoothly >> > - created a Quickstart against the staging repo >> > - ran Quickstart with Flink local mode >> > - ran Quickstart against a Flink 1.2 cluster >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 01:44, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: >> > > Conclusion (see JIRA): Not a release blocker (but still a bug in >> > > TestPipeline). >> > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:40 PM Eugene Kirpichov < >> kirpic...@google.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > +Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@data-artisans.com> >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Eugene Kirpichov < >> kirpic...@google.com >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > +Stas Levin <stasle...@apache.org> +Thomas Groh <tg...@google.com> >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Eugene Kirpichov < >> kirpic...@google.com >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1712 might be a release >> > > > blocker. >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:53 PM Ahmet Altay >> <al...@google.com.invalid> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Thank you for all the comment so far. >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > bq. I would prefer that we have a .tar.gz release >> > > > > >> > > > > +1 >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > +1 (non-binding) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > - verified signatures + checksums >> > > > > > - run mvn clean install -Prelease, all artifacts build and the >> > tests >> > > > run >> > > > > > smoothly (modulo some local issues I had with the installation >> of >> > tox >> > > > for >> > > > > > the python sdk, I created a PR to fix those in case other people >> > can >> > > > have >> > > > > > the same trouble). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Some remarks still to fix from the release, but that I don’t >> > consider >> > > > > > blockers: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. The section Getting Started in the main README.md needs to be >> > > > updated >> > > > > > with the information about the creating/activating the >> virtualenv. >> > At >> > > > > this >> > > > > > moment just running mvn clean install won’t work without this. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > mvn clean install should run without any additional steps, including >> > the >> > > > creation of a virtualenv. tox will manage this process, and it is >> > already >> > > > integrated Maven. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. Both zip files in the current release produce a folder with >> the >> > > > same >> > > > > > name ‘apache-beam-0.6.0’. This can be messy if users unzip both >> > files >> > > > > into >> > > > > > the same folder (as happened to me, the compressed files should >> > > > produce a >> > > > > > directory with the exact same name that the file, so >> > > > > > apache-beam-0.6.0-python.zip will produce >> apache-beam-0.6.0-python >> > and >> > > > > the >> > > > > > other its respective directory. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 3. The name of the files of the release probably should be >> > different: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The source release could be just apache-beam-0.6.0.zip instead >> of >> > > > > > apache-beam-0.6.0-source-release.zip considering that we don’t >> > have >> > > > > binary >> > > > > > artifacts, or just apache-beam-0.6.0-src.zip following the >> > convention >> > > > of >> > > > > > other apache projects. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The python release also could be renamed from >> > > > > > apache-beam-0.6.0-bin-python.zip instead of >> > > > apache-beam-0.6.0-python.zip >> > > > > > so >> > > > > > users understand that these are executable files (but well I am >> not >> > > > sure >> > > > > > about that one considering that python is a scripting language). >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Python distribution is a source distribution, adding bin to the name >> > would >> > > > be confusing. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Finally I would prefer that we have a .tar.gz release as JB >> > mentioned >> > > > in >> > > > > > the previous vote, and as most apache projects do. In any case >> if >> > the >> > > > zip >> > > > > > is somehow a requirement it would be nice to have both a .zip >> and a >> > > > > .tar.gz >> > > > > > file. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > I think we should move this to a different thread. IMO, having a >> single >> > > > source of truth is better than having both file formats. Between >> both >> > file >> > > > formats I don't have a strong opinion but considering the Windows >> > users zip >> > > > might be a portable option. >> > > > >> > > > Thank you, >> > > > Ahmet >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >
