Of course. I don't think we can remove the release manager from the process, but I think I can automate it so that there are at least fewer manual steps for the release manager to perform.
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Got it. But don't forget there is a release guide and some manual > validation to perform. A Apache release is not just a script to run, as a > release manager, you are also responsible of the verification (legal, > artifacts, etc). > > Regards > JB > > On Nov 3, 2017, 17:45, at 17:45, Reuven Lax <[email protected]> > wrote: > >What I meant is that there are many manual commands today, which makes > >the > >process more prone to human error at a number of points. I don't think > >we > >need to change the release process, I simply want to script it so that > >the > >release owner has to run fewer commands. > > > >On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > >wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> If the tag is ok, updated artifacts require a new staging repository. > >So > >> it means the vote email is obsolete. > >> > >> I would cut a clean new rc3 and start a new vote. > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On Nov 3, 2017, 16:30, at 16:30, Reuven Lax > ><[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >Thanks for catching this. > >> > > >> >Do we need new artifacts? Looks like we might just need a new source > >> >drop. > >> > > >> >On Nov 3, 2017 11:27 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <[email protected]> > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> >> Probably the cleanup (git clean -x) has not be done before cutting > >> >the > >> >> release. > >> >> > >> >> I would ask a new rc to fix the provided artifacts. > >> >> > >> >> Regards > >> >> JB > >> >> > >> >> On Nov 3, 2017, 15:46, at 15:46, "Ismaël Mejía" > ><[email protected]> > >> >wrote: > >> >> >I found some issues during the vote validation (not sure if those > >> >> >would require a new vote since most seem to be packaging related > >and > >> >> >we can get with it by removing the extra stuff that ended up in > >the > >> >> >zip files): > >> >> > > >> >> >1. I inspected the apache-beam-2.2.0-source-release.zip file and > >was > >> >a > >> >> >bit surprised to notice that it was twice the size of the one for > >> >the > >> >> >2.1.0 vote, then I discovered that the sdks/python/,eggs > >directory > >> >was > >> >> >part of the 2.2.0 zip file (I suppose this is an issue). > >> >> > > >> >> >2. There are some directories/files that appear in the zip file > >that > >> >> >don't exist in the 2.2.0-rc2 git tag: > >> >> > > >> >> >2.1.1/ > >> >> >foo/ > >> >> >model/ > >> >> >sdks/python/README.md > >> >> > > >> >> >3. Then I run the rat validation and it broke because some files > >> >don't > >> >> >have the correct (I suppose these are generated files that should > >> >not > >> >> >be part of the final distribution). This is a part of the release > >> >> >process that we have done manually and that has bitten us in the > >> >> >latest two releases. > >> >> > > >> >> >[WARNING] Files with unapproved licenses: > >> >> > > >> >sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_runner_api_pb2_grpc.py > >> >> > > >sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/standard_window_fns_pb2.py > >> >> > sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_job_api_pb2.py > >> >> > sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/endpoints_pb2.py > >> >> > > >> > >>sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_artifact_api_pb2_grpc.py > >> >> > > >sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_artifact_api_pb2.py > >> >> > sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_fn_api_pb2_grpc.py > >> >> > sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_fn_api_pb2.py > >> >> > sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_runner_api_pb2.py > >> >> > > >sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_provision_api_pb2.py > >> >> > > >sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_job_api_pb2_grpc.py > >> >> > sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/endpoints_pb2_grpc.py > >> >> > > >> > >>sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_provision_api_pb2_grpc.py > >> >> > >> > >>>sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/standard_window_fns_pb2_grpc.py > >> >> > > >> >> >On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Reuven Lax > >> ><[email protected]> > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >> Hi everyone, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the > >version > >> >> >2.2.0, > >> >> >> 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 B98B7708 > >[3], > >> >> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central > >Repository > >> >[4], > >> >> >> * source code tag "v2.2.0-RC2" [5], > >> >> >> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the > >> >API > >> >> >> reference manual [6]. > >> >> >> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.5.0 and > >OpenJDK/Oracle > >> >JDK > >> >> >> 1.8.0_144. > >> >> >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release > >to > >> >> >the > >> >> >> dist.apache.org [2]. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by > >> >> >majority > >> >> >> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks, > >> >> >> Reuven > >> >> >> > >> >> >> [1] > >> >> >> > >> >> >https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa? > >> >> projectId=12319527&version=12341044 > >> >> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.2.0/ > >> >> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS > >> >> >> [4] > >> >> > >> > >>>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1022/ > >> >> >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.2.0-RC2 > >> >> >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/337 > >> >> > >> >
