Retrying the whole step succeeded, so somehow this was an ephemeral error. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote:
> 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(Lau >>> ncher.java:229) >>> >>> at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.mainWithEx >>> itCode(Launcher.java:415) >>> >>> at org.codehaus.plexus.classworlds.launcher.Launcher.main(Launc >>> her.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 >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >
