I've fixed the Python issue - turns out my local path got messed up. However, mvn release:prepare is now failing with the following. I haven't seen this failure before - does anyone know what might be causing it?
[*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-release-plugin:2.5.3:prepare *(default-cli)* on project beam-parent: *An error is occurred in the checkin process: Exception while executing SCM command.*: Detecting the current branch failed: fatal: ref HEAD is not a symbolic ref -> *[Help 1]* On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: > This is with the CP of Eugene's PR. However Eugene's PR does not touch > anything Python. > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> mvn -Prelease clean install >> >> >> [*INFO*] *--- *exec-maven-plugin:1.5.0:exec *(setuptools-clean)* @ >> beam-sdks-python* ---* >> >> Could not find platform independent libraries <prefix> >> >> Could not find platform dependent libraries <exec_prefix> >> >> Consider setting $PYTHONHOME to <prefix>[:<exec_prefix>] >> >> ImportError: No module named site >> >> [*ERROR*] Command execution failed. >> >> org.apache.commons.exec.ExecuteException: Process exited with an error: >> 1 (Exit value: 1) >> >> at org.apache.commons.exec.DefaultExecutor.executeInternal(Defa >> ultExecutor.java:404) >> >> at org.apache.commons.exec.DefaultExecutor.execute(DefaultExecu >> tor.java:166) >> >> at org.codehaus.mojo.exec.ExecMojo.executeCommandLine(ExecMojo.java:764) >> >> at org.codehaus.mojo.exec.ExecMojo.executeCommandLine(ExecMojo.java:711) >> >> at org.codehaus.mojo.exec.ExecMojo.execute(ExecMojo.java:289) >> >> at org.apache.maven.plugin.DefaultBuildPluginManager.executeMoj >> o(DefaultBuildPluginManager.java:134) >> >> at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.MojoExecutor.execute(Moj >> oExecutor.java:208) >> >> at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.MojoExecutor.execute(Moj >> oExecutor.java:154) >> >> at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.MojoExecutor.execute(Moj >> oExecutor.java:146) >> >> at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.LifecycleModuleBuilder.b >> uildProject(LifecycleModuleBuilder.java:117) >> >> at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.LifecycleModuleBuilder.b >> uildProject(LifecycleModuleBuilder.java:81) >> >> at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.builder.singlethreaded.S >> ingleThreadedBuilder.build(SingleThreadedBuilder.java:51) >> >> at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.LifecycleStarter.execute >> (LifecycleStarter.java:128) >> >> at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:309) >> >> at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:194) >> >> at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute(DefaultMaven.java:107) >> >> at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.execute(MavenCli.java:993) >> >> at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.doMain(MavenCli.java:345) >> >> at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.main(MavenCli.java:191) >> >> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) >> >> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAcce >> ssorImpl.java:62) >> >> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMe >> thodAccessorImpl.java:43) >> >> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498) >> >> at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launchEnha >> nced(Launcher.java:289) >> >> at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.launch( >> Launcher.java:229) >> >> at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.mainWithEx >> itCode(Launcher.java:415) >> >> at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.main( >> Launcher.java:356) >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Charles Chen <c...@google.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
