Could you send the command you used that produced this error? I can't reproduce it at the tip of the release-2.2.0 branch.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 5:34 AM Reuven Lax <re...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > 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> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> <(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 > > >
