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
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to