I'm trying to do the last CP and cut RC4, but I'm getting a compilation failure in Python - "ImportError: No module named site"
Did we possibly break the release branch on one of the Python CPs? Reuven On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Reuven, > > +1 for RC4, and don't worry: it's part of the process. I prefer to have a > long release process than a crappy a release ;) That's exactly the purpose > of review & vote. > > I definitely think that having releases more often will reduce such kind > of issue. > > Regards > JB > > > On 11/12/2017 09:04 AM, Reuven Lax wrote: > >> I definitely appreciate the frustration about how long this release is >> taking. It's verging on the point of ridiculous at this point, and we need >> to fix some of the things that caused us to get to this state (for one >> thing our infrastructure was so busted at one point, that Valentyn spent 2 >> weeks trying to get on PR merged into the release branch). >> >> At this point, let's try and fix this Monday. Unfortunately this is not >> the >> sole issue requiring RC4. Python verification failed as well, and we need >> an RC4 regardless to merge those PRs. I'm hoping that RC4 is our final RC, >> and we can finish voting next week. >> >> Reuven >> >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Le 11 nov. 2017 09:52, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <j...@nanthrax.net> a écrit : >>> >>> If the purpose is to release 2.2.1 in one week, why not just to a RC4 ? >>> >>> It's not a regression because WriteFiles is new and extend the previous >>> FileSource. So it could consider as a severe bug, especially on >>> WriteFiles >>> which is important. >>> >>> >>> Fair enough. >>> >>> >>> The core issue is the time we spent already on this release: roughly 1 >>> month !!! It's clearly too long due to different causes. >>> When I did the previous releases, it took 3 or 4 days. It's clearly the >>> target as, as said, I would like to have a release pace of a release >>> every >>> 6 weeks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Agree and this is why 2.2.0 must be out now IMHO. If you are confident >>> next >>> week is sufficient just go ahead and ignore my comment but my point was >>> the >>> same: it shouldnt last so long if there is no regression :(. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> >>> On 11/11/2017 08:41 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>> >>> You can see it differently: is there a critical bug? Yes! Is there a >>>> regression? No! >>>> >>>> So no need to wait another week (keep in mind 2 days + 3 days of vote >>>> makes easily 1 working week). This vote could be closed already and next >>>> week 2.2.1 could fix this bug, no? Overall idea is to not hold the >>>> community more than needed if there is no regression compared to last >>>> few >>>> releases. >>>> >>>> Le 11 nov. 2017 07:46, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <j...@nanthrax.net> a écrit >>>> >>> : >>> >>>> >>>> -1 (binding) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Eugene, data loss is severe. >>>>> >>>>> As Eugene seems confident to fix that quickly, I think it's worth to >>>>> >>>> cut a >>> >>>> RC4. >>>>> >>>>> However, I would introduce a deadline. As I would like to propose a >>>>> release cycle of a release every 6 weeks (whatever it contains, but it >>>>> really important to keep a regular pace in releases), a release should >>>>> >>>> be >>> >>>> cut in couple of days. So, maybe we can give us 2 business days to fix >>>>> that >>>>> and propose a RC4. Basically, if this issue is not fix on Tuesday >>>>> night, >>>>> then, we move forward anyway. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>> On 11/10/2017 07:42 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately I think I found a data loss bug - it was there since >>>>> 2.0.0 >>>>> >>>>>> but I think it's serious enough that delaying a fix until the next >>>>>> release >>>>>> would be irresponsible. >>>>>> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3169 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:57 PM Robert Bradshaw >>>>>> <rober...@google.com.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Our release notes look like nothing more than a query for the closed >>>>>> >>>>>> jira issues. Do we have a top-level summary to highlight the big >>>>>>> ticket items in the release? And in particular somewhere to mention >>>>>>> that this is likely the last release to support Java 7 that'll get >>>>>>> widely read? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Reuven Lax <re...@google.com.invalid >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This RC is currently failing on a number of validation steps, so we >>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cut at least one more RC. Fingers crossed that it will be the last >>>>>>> >>>>>> one. >>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Reuven >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Konstantinos Katsiapis < >>>>>>>> katsia...@google.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just a remark: Release of Tensorflow Transform >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/tensorflow/transform> 0.4.0 depends on release >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of >>> >>>> Apache Beam 2.2.0 so upvoting for a release (the sooner the better). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Reuven Lax >>>>>>>>> <re...@google.com.invalid >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are we waiting for any more validation of this candidate? If people >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> still running tests I'll hold off on RC4 (to reduce the chance of an >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RC5), >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> otherwise I'll cut RC4 once Valentyn's PR is merged. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Reuven >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Valentyn Tymofieiev < >>>>>>>>>> valen...@google.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4109 is out to address both >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> findings I >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> reported earlier. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Etienne Chauchot < >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> echauc...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just as a remark, I compared (on my laptop though) queries >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> execution >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> on my previous run of 2.2.0-RC3 with release 2.1.0 and I did not >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> performance regression. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Etienne >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 09/11/2017 à 03:13, Valentyn Tymofieiev a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I looked at Python side of Dataflow & Direct runners on Linux. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> two findings: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. One of the mobile gaming examples did not pass for Dataflow >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> runner, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> addressed in: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4102 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapa >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> che%2Fbeam%2Fpull%2F4102&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF3OS6Oo-MeNET >>>>>>>>>>>>> CCmOxJj5Gm2uH6g> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Python streaming did not work for Dataflow runner, one PR is >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4106, but follow up PRs may >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> required >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> as we continue to investigate. If we had a PostCommit tests suite >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> running >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> against a release branch, this could have been caught earlier. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Filed >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3163. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Reuven Lax >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <re...@google.com.invalid >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 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-RC3" [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?p >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rojectId=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/orgapache >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> beam-1023/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.2.0-RC3 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.2.0-RC3> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/337 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Gus Katsiapis | Software Engineer | katsia...@google.com | >>>>>>>>> 650-918-7487 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <(650)%20918-7487> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>> 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 >
