Python development isn't generally like Java in this sense--you just point people at a tarball that they install. Granted, this doesn't work as well when one has a set of 100 tarballs that all should be installed together, but again that's not the Python way to release a project.
I did find https://test.pypi.org/project/apache-beam/#files which seems the closest thing to this. They're marked with the release candidate name because (again unlike java) it's considered bad practice to release an artifact under one name, and then push a new "version" of that artifact (the way we do with https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.4.0/ where the binary blobs there are whatever was push last). On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:27 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > I think the thing is just that you can point a user env at it to test like a user. Like you can do this with https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1030/ but not https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.4.0/ > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 5:03 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >> I do not know what is the best practice. For practical purposes it makes sense to stage to the same svn repo, so that we can test it as part of the release process. >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: >>> Yes, we should. There's a bit of an open question of where these release artifacts should be staged. (Eventually, of course, they'll be published to PyPi). Should they be placed alongside the source artifacts in the svn repository? >>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:00 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >>>> Are we planning to do this for the 2.4.0 release? I am asking, because they were not part of RC1 artifacts. >>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Nima Mousavi <nima.mous...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > Related question: >>>>> > >>>>> > How can we tell if the docker image of our binary contains the cython >>>>> > optimized beam or the slower codepath? >>>>> > The image was built on Google cloud (using gcloud container builds submit). >>>>> There are certain modules (corresponding to the pyx files) that are >>>>> only built if Cython is present. We can (1) make sure Cython is >>>>> installed before installing apache beam into the container, and (2) >>>>> assert as part of the build process that these modules exist. >>>>> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> +1 to wheels. The main effort for this would be updating the release >>>>> >> guide, and adding support for other platforms in Jenkins for building and >>>>> >> testing wheels. In light of this, maybe we can prioritize having test >>>>> >> infrastructure for other platforms. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> +1 for wheels, they are the standard binary distribution format so it >>>>> >>> makes sense. Also wheels support packaging python 2 and 3 on universal >>>>> >>> packages so they are future proof. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Robert Bradshaw < rober...@google.com> >>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>> > +1, is it too late to try to release these as part of the 2.3 release >>>>> >>> > (to get familiar with the process, no code changes should be needed)? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> It would be nice to have this for the current release. How can we build >>>>> >> and test these binaries? I think it will be prudent to waIt until we have >>>>> >> infrastructure. >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > The wheels are advantageous when running locally (e.g. during testing >>>>> >>> > and development) where requiring containers will probably be overkill. >>>>> >>> > This will become especially relevant with the switch to use the >>>>> >>> > FnApiRunner. >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>> >> If we want all our code related to pipeline execution to be in a >>>>> >>> >> container, >>>>> >>> >> what value does building wheel distributions provide? >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Kenneth Knowles < k...@google.com> >>>>> >>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> +1 >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> Currently, Apache Beam distributes Python packages through pip and >>>>> >>> >>>> PyPI. >>>>> >>> >>>> On PyPI, developers can release either source tarballs, and / or >>>>> >>> >>>> precompiled >>>>> >>> >>>> "wheel" distributions for each platform, which would be used if >>>>> >>> >>>> available >>>>> >>> >>>> for a particular platform. Currently, we only distribute the source >>>>> >>> >>>> tarballs, so any user who installs Beam using "pip install >>>>> >>> >>>> apache_beam" has >>>>> >>> >>>> to have a compiler and toolchain installed to take advantage of >>>>> >>> >>>> Cython >>>>> >>> >>>> optimizations in Beam (which require compiled C code). If such a >>>>> >>> >>>> compiler >>>>> >>> >>>> is not available, Beam is currently configured to install anyway, >>>>> >>> >>>> but will >>>>> >>> >>>> use slower Python codepaths instead of the more optimized ones (for >>>>> >>> >>>> example, >>>>> >>> >>>> for Coder encoding / decoding). >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> I would like to propose that we start distributing binary wheel >>>>> >>> >>>> distributions for our releases, for common platforms like Windows / >>>>> >>> >>>> Mac / >>>>> >>> >>>> Linux. We could potentially use a method similar to this one >>>>> >>> >>>> (https://github.com/MacPython/cython-wheels) for building these >>>>> >>> >>>> wheel >>>>> >>> >>>> distributions. Thoughts? >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> Best, >>>>> >>> >>>> Charles >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >
