I think it would be a "good to have" point (maybe not a blocker). I will propose a release guide PR about this tomorrow.
Regards JB Le 1 mars 2018 à 09:09, à 09:09, Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> a écrit: >Should we change release policy so that the validation tests are >required >to pass on a release candidate as a requirement for the release to be >approved? > >If so, we should update the release guide saying so. > >On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >wrote: > >> Cool, thanks ! >> >> Maybe at least a note to run nexmark on every RC to compare the >results >> with >> previous releases is interesting. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 03/01/2018 02:02 AM, Alan Myrvold wrote: >> > Thanks for the feedback. Yifan and I have automated the Java >> quickstarts for >> > apex, direct, dataflow, flink local and spark [1] and automated >python >> release >> > validation [2]. Yifan is working on fixing the Java mobile >archetype and >> > validating the mobile example. The spark quickstart automation came >in >> late, but >> > identified the [BEAM-3668] issue in RC2. >> > >> > The Java quickstarts are now running daily with the snapshot >release [3] >> and are >> > parameterized to make it easy to run with the next RC candidate. >> > >> > Hope these help make the next release smoother. Open to ideas for >other >> areas to >> > automate. >> > >> > [1] >https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/master/release/src/main/groovy >> > [2] >> > https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/release/src/ >> main/groovy/run_release_candidate_python_validation.sh >> > [3] https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Beam/job/beam_ >> PostRelease_NightlySnapshot/ >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:54 AM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com >> > <mailto:lc...@google.com>> wrote: >> > >> > Validating the release by following quickstarts being a manual >> process I >> > believe is still the largest pain point: >> > * We missed that the archetypes were missing the mobile gaming >> examples. >> > * The tcnative dependency conflict that we needed to cut RC2 >for. >> > >> > Overall much smoother then the prior release but still a good >amount >> of >> > manual steps involved. >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Reuven Lax <re...@google.com >> > <mailto:re...@google.com>> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks for fixing the manual cleanup issue! This is >something we >> kept >> > punting on in previous releases. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:14 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> j...@nanthrax.net >> > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Alan, >> > >> > Honestly, it was an easy and smooth release, similar >to >> other >> > Apache project >> > release. >> > >> > Maybe the points where we could a little bit improve >are: >> > >> > 1. The website update was pretty long as @asfgit merge >> didn't work >> > (due to a out >> > of sync on the github mirror). I think the website >publish >> PR can be >> > automatized. >> > 2. Upload to pylib required manual action (like >renaming the >> files) >> > >> > Thanks to the change I did on the assembly, the >artifacts >> don't >> > require any >> > manual cleanup (whereas it was the case in previous >release). >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On 02/26/2018 10:54 PM, Alan Myrvold wrote: >> > > Is there a list of pain points during the 2.3.0 >release and >> > improvements that >> > > can be made to the 2.4.0 release process? >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > jbono...@apache.org <mailto: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 >>
