+1 on cutting a release to fix this. As an aside, if we later determine that we require a release that includes Java, that release will be 2.1.2 (or equivalent) - the reason we aren't releasing Java artifacts is a matter of convenience (they have the same contents as the 2.1.0 release), not because the versions are diverging within this minor version.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Ben Chambers <bchamb...@apache.org> wrote: > Any elaboration or jira issues describing what is broken? Any proposal for > what changes need to happen to fix it? > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 5:49 PM Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > +1 for cutting 2.1.1 for Python SDK only. > > > > Thanks, > > Cham > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:43 PM Robert Bradshaw > > <rober...@google.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > +1. Right now anyone who follows our quickstart instructions or > > > otherwise installs the latest release of apache_beam is broken. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Charles Chen <c...@google.com.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > The latest version (2.1.0) of Beam Python ( > > > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/apache-beam) is broken due to a change > in > > > the > > > > "six" dependency (BEAM-2964 > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2964>). For instance, > > > > installing "apache-beam" in a clean environment and running "python > -m > > > > apache_beam.examples.wordcount" results in a failure. This issue is > > > fixed > > > > at head with Robert's recent PR ( > > > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/3865). > > > > > > > > I propose to cherry-pick this change on top of the 2.1.0 release > branch > > > (to > > > > form a new 2.1.1 release branch) and call a vote to release version > > 2.1.1 > > > > only for Beam Python. > > > > > > > > Alternatively, to preserve version alignment we could also re-release > > > Beam > > > > Java 2.1.1 with the same code as 2.1.0 modulo the version bump. > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Charles > > > > > >
