Is this vote already closed and the artifacts published?
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:03 PM Connell O'Callaghan <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:02 AM Thomas Weise <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 5:00 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> +1, let's get this out. >>> >>> We can decide about 2.9.1 later. >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:43 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > +1 >>> > >>> > On 20.12.18 23:11, Tyler Akidau wrote: >>> > > +1, Approve the release. >>> > > >>> > > -Tyler >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:49 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected] >>> > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > I meant BEAM-6249 in my last sentence. It should read: "BEAM-6249 >>> > > has a >>> > > comment about user building the libraries themselves, I am not sure >>> > > if they >>> > > are using the release 2.9 version directly or not." >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:48 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected] >>> > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > +1 >>> > > >>> > > I don't think there is a need for a hotfix release. The reason >>> > > the >>> > > initial vendoring PR (https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7024) >>> > > that >>> > > started the issue was not cherry picked to the release branch. >>> > > BEAM-6056 >>> > > has a comment about user building the libraries themselves, I >>> > > am not >>> > > sure if they are using the release 2.9 version directly or not. >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:37 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected] >>> > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > I don't know yet about 2.9.1. There's a bit more context on >>> > > BEAM-6249. >>> > > >>> > > Kenn >>> > > >>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6249 >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:02 PM Scott Wegner >>> > > <[email protected] >>> > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Releasing new vendored artifacts won't generally imply >>> > > a full >>> > > Beam release. The plan is to pick up the new artifact >>> > > version at >>> > > HEAD which will roll into the next release. >>> > > >>> > > For this particularly case, the question is if the >>> > > Dataflow >>> > > issue that this fixes (BEAM-6056) warrants a hotfix >>> > > release >>> > > (2.9.1). I don't know the answer-- Ahmet/Kenn do you >>> > > have any >>> > > thoughts? >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:18 AM Ismaël Mejía >>> > > <[email protected] >>> > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Does this imply that we need a subsequent full >>> > > release >>> > > afterwards? >>> > > I am assuming this new release is related to the >>> > > reported >>> > > issues with >>> > > the dataflow worker or is this something different? >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:51 AM Kenneth Knowles >>> > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > +1 >>> > > > >>> > > > - sigs good >>> > > > - `jar tf` looks good >>> > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:54 PM Scott Wegner >>> > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Please review and vote on the release candidate >>> > > #1 for >>> > > the vendored artifact gRPC 1.13.1 v0.2 >>> > > >> [ ] +1, Approve the release >>> > > >> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please >>> > > provide >>> > > specific comments) >>> > > >> >>> > > >> This is a follow-up to the previous thread about >>> > > vendoring updates [1] >>> > > >> >>> > > >> The complete staging area is available for your >>> > > review, >>> > > which includes: >>> > > >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven >>> > > Central >>> > > Repository [2], >>> > > >> * commit hash >>> > > "3b8abca3ca3352e6bf20e059f17324049a2eae0a" >>> > > [3], >>> > > >> * artifacts which are signed with the key with >>> > > fingerprint >>> > > >> 5F47BD54C52008007288FF4D3593BA6C25ABF71F [4] >>> > > >> >>> > > >> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It >>> > > is >>> > > adopted by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC >>> > > affirmative votes. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Thanks, >>> > > >> Scott >>> > > >> >>> > > >> [1] >>> > > >>> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9a55d12000cb3b1b61620b7dc4009d1351e6b8c70951f70aeb358583@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>> > > >> [2] >>> > > >>> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1055/ >>> > > >> [3] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7328 >>> > > >> [4] >>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS >>> > > >> -- >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >>> > > <http://tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback> >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback >>> > > <https://tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback> >>> > >
