+1 (binding) A new feature request (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6212) had been filed against 2.9.0 release ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/BEAM/versions/12344258). I moved it to 2.10.0.
I additionally built [some targets in] the source release. The website build does not work since it apparently depends on having a git repo defined. We should fix that but no reason to block the release. Kenn On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:54 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com> wrote: > +1 > > Turns out we broke DOUBLE on purpose. Updated the demo to use DECIMAL and > it doesn't hard fail. This is a docs bug. > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:55 PM Scott Wegner <sc...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> I verified the Java examples succeed on DirectRunner. >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:30 PM Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Andrew. Please make this a blocker and -1 the thread if you think >>> we need a new RC. >>> >>> - Cham >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:27 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I was just running the Beam SQL demo. I found one query fails with "the >>>> keyCoder of a GroupByKey must be deterministic" and another just hangs. I >>>> opened an issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6224 Not >>>> sure if this calls for canceling the release or just a release note (SQL is >>>> still experimental). I'm continuing to track down the root cause, but am >>>> tied up with the Beam Meetup in SFO today. >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ruoyun Huang <ruo...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1, Looking forward to the release! >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:09 AM Chamikara Jayalath < >>>>> chamik...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I ran Beam RC verification script [1] and updated the validation >>>>>> spreadsheet [2]. I think the current release candidate looks good. >>>>>> >>>>>> So +1 for the release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Cham >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/release/src/main/scripts/run_rc_validation.sh >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=2053422529 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:19 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at the dates on the Spark runner git log there was a PR >>>>>>> merged to change Spark translation from classes to URNs. I cannot see >>>>>>> how >>>>>>> this can impact performance. Looking at the other queries in the >>>>>>> dashboards, there seems to be a great variability in the executions of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Spark runner to the point of feeling we don't have guarantees anymore. I >>>>>>> wonder if this was because of other loads shared in the server(s), or >>>>>>> because our sample is too small for the standard deviation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would proceed with the release, the real question is if we can >>>>>>> somehow constraint the execution of this tests to have a more consistent >>>>>>> output. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 4:10 PM Etienne Chauchot < >>>>>>> echauc...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> Regarding query7 in spark: >>>>>>>> - there doesn't seem to be a functional regression: query passes >>>>>>>> and output size is still the same >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Also the performance degradation seems to be only on spark, the >>>>>>>> other runners do not seem to suffer from it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - performance degradation seems to be constant from 11/12 so we can >>>>>>>> eliminate temporary load on the jenkins server that would generate >>>>>>>> delays >>>>>>>> in Max transform. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> => query7 uses Max transform, fanout and side inputs, has one of >>>>>>>> these parts recently (11/12/18) changed in spark? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Etienne >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le jeudi 06 décembre 2018 à 21:32 -0800, Chamikara Jayalath a >>>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Udi or anybody else who is familiar about Nexmark, please -1 the >>>>>>>> vote thread if you think this particular performance regression for >>>>>>>> Spark/Direct runners is a blocker. Otherwise I think we can continue >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> vote. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Cham >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:19 PM Chamikara Jayalath < >>>>>>>> chamik...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are either of these regressions due to known issues ? If not should >>>>>>>> they be considered release blockers ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Cham >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:11 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For DirectRunner there are regressions in query 7 sql direct >>>>>>>> runner batch mode >>>>>>>> <https://apache-beam-testing.appspot.com/explore?dashboard=5084698770407424&widget=732741424&container=411089194> >>>>>>>> (2x) >>>>>>>> and streaming mode (5x). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:59 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see a regression for query 7 spark runner batch mode >>>>>>>> <https://apache-beam-testing.appspot.com/explore?dashboard=5138380291571712&widget=1782465104&container=462502368> >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> about 2018-11-13. >>>>>>>> [image: image.png] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:46 AM Chamikara Jayalath < >>>>>>>> chamik...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version >>>>>>>> 2.9.0, 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 >>>>>>>> EEAC70DF3D0BC23B [3], >>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4], >>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.9.0-RC1" [5], >>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the >>>>>>>> API reference manual [7]. >>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to >>>>>>>> the dist.apache.org [2]. >>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.9.0 release to help with >>>>>>>> validation [7]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by >>>>>>>> majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Cham >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12344258 >>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.9.0/ >>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS >>>>>>>> [4] >>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1054/ >>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.9.0-RC1 >>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7215 >>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/584 >>>>>>>> [8] >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=2053422529 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ================ >>>>> Ruoyun Huang >>>>> >>>>> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >> >
