OK. There is just one release blocker remaining;
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6354

I have no insights yet, but I am bisecting. It was healthy in 2.9.0.

Kenn

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:38 AM Scott Wegner <[email protected]> wrote:

> The rollback for BEAM-6352 is now in and cherry-picked into the release
> branch.
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:04 AM Scott Wegner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> For BEAM-6352, I have a rollback ready for review:
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7540
>> Conversation about the decision to rollback vs. roll-forward for this
>> change is on the JIRA issue.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:22 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've created the revert for the pipeline options parsing which we agreed
>>> on:
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7564
>>>
>>> On 17.01.19 15:16, Maximilian Michels wrote:
>>> > An issue with the Flink Runner when restarting streaming pipelines:
>>> > https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6460
>>> >
>>> > Looks like it will be easy to fix by invalidating the Jackson cache.
>>> >
>>> > -Max
>>> >
>>> > On 16.01.19 23:00, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>> >> Quick update on this. There are three remaining issues:
>>> >>
>>> >>   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6407: A DirectRunner
>>> self-check
>>> >> was broken from 2.8.0 to 2.9.0 - PR looks good modulo our infra flakes
>>> >>   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6354: PAssert +
>>> DirectRunner +
>>> >> Unbounded data busted? Investigation not started
>>> >>   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6352: Watch was
>>> broken from
>>> >> 2.8.0 to 2.9.0 - will rollback if no forward fix by the time
>>> everything else
>>> >> is resolved
>>> >>
>>> >> Kenn
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:00 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]
>>> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>     Thanks, Ismaël!
>>> >>
>>> >>     On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 2:13 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]
>>> >>     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>         Ok since there were not many issues I did the 'update' for the
>>> >>         misplaced issues to version 2.10. We are good to go. New
>>> resolved
>>> >>         issues in master musg go now into 2.11.0
>>> >>
>>> >>         On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Ismaël Mejía <
>>> [email protected]
>>> >>         <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >>          >
>>> >>          > This means that the tickets resolved and marked for 2.11
>>> since January
>>> >>          > 2 should be reviewed and retargetted to version 2.10.
>>> >>          > So this is a call for action for committers who have
>>> merged fixes
>>> >>          > after the cut to update the tickets if required.
>>> >>          >
>>> >>          > Ismaël
>>> >>          >
>>> >>          > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:22 PM Kenneth Knowles <
>>> [email protected]
>>> >>         <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >>          > >
>>> >>          > > As a heads up, I did not realize that the release guide
>>> specified a
>>> >>         custom process for starting a release branch. It makes sense;
>>> >>         cut_release_branch.sh consolidates knowledge about all the
>>> places the
>>> >>         version is hardcoded in the codebase. To keep the history
>>> simple, I will
>>> >>         re-cut the release branch at the point where master moved from
>>> >>         2.10.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.11.0-SNAPSHOT. All PRs to the branch
>>> have been
>>> >>         cherry-picked from master, so they will all be incorporated
>>> without any
>>> >>         action by their authors.
>>> >>          > >
>>> >>          > > Kenn
>>> >>          > >
>>> >>          > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:31 AM Kenneth Knowles <
>>> [email protected]
>>> >>         <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >>          > >>
>>> >>          > >> I'm on it.
>>> >>          > >>
>>> >>          > >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 8:10 AM Ismaël Mejía <
>>> [email protected]
>>> >>         <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >>          > >>>
>>> >>          > >>> There is also another issue, after the 2.10.0 branch
>>> cut some
>>> >>          > >>> identifier in the build was not changed and the Apache
>>> Beam
>>> >> Snapshots
>>> >>          > >>> keep generating SNAPSHOTS for 2.10.0 instead of the
>>> now current
>>> >>          > >>> 2.11.0-SNAPSHOT. Can somebody PTAL?
>>> >>          > >>>
>>> >>          > >>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 6:17 PM Maximilian Michels <
>>> [email protected]
>>> >>         <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >>          > >>> >
>>> >>          > >>> > Thanks for driving this Kenn! I'm in favor of a
>>> strict cut off,
>>> >>         but I'd like to
>>> >>          > >>> > propose a week for cherry-picking relevant changes
>>> to the
>>> >>         release branch. It
>>> >>          > >>> > looks like many people are returning from holidays
>>> or are still
>>> >>         off.
>>> >>          > >>> >
>>> >>          > >>> > Cheers,
>>> >>          > >>> > Max
>>> >>          > >>> >
>>> >>          > >>> > On 02.01.19 17:20, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>> >>          > >>> > > Done. I've created the Jira tag for 2.11.0.
>>> >>          > >>> > >
>>> >>          > >>> > > Previously, there was a few days warning to get
>>> things in
>>> >>         before the branch is
>>> >>          > >>> > > cut. You can just cherry-pick them. This is a bit
>>> better for
>>> >>         release stability
>>> >>          > >>> > > by avoiding all the other changes on master. The
>>> timing of
>>> >>         the cut is always
>>> >>          > >>> > > going to include older and newer changes anyhow.
>>> >>          > >>> > >
>>> >>          > >>> > > Kenn
>>> >>          > >>> > >
>>> >>          > >>> > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 1:08 PM Ismaël Mejía
>>> >>         <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> >>          > >>> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:
>>> [email protected]>>> wrote:
>>> >>          > >>> > >
>>> >>          > >>> > >     Can you please create 2.11 tag in JIRA so we
>>> can move the
>>> >>         JIRAs that
>>> >>          > >>> > >     are not blocking. I have quite a bunch of
>>> pending code
>>> >>         reviews that
>>> >>          > >>> > >     hoped to get into this one but well now
>>> probably they
>>> >>         shall wait. (My
>>> >>          > >>> > >     excuses for the people who may be impacted, I
>>> had not
>>> >>         checked that the
>>> >>          > >>> > >     date was in the first week).
>>> >>          > >>> > >
>>> >>          > >>> > >     On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:45 PM Jean-Baptiste
>>> Onofré
>>> >>         <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> >>          > >>> > >     <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:
>>> [email protected]>>> wrote:
>>> >>          > >>> > >      >
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > It sounds good to me.
>>> >>          > >>> > >      >
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > Regards
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > JB
>>> >>          > >>> > >      >
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > On 02/01/2019 16:16, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > Hi All,
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > >
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > According to the release calendar [1]
>>> branch cut
>>> >>         date for
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > Beam 2.10.0 release is today, 2019
>>> January 2. I'd
>>> >>         like to volunteer to
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > manage this release. Does anyone have any
>>> reason we
>>> >>         should not release
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > on schedule?
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > >
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > Otherwise, if you know of
>>> release-blocking bugs,
>>> >>         please mark their "Fix
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > Version" as 2.10.0 and they will show up
>>> in the
>>> >>         burndown [2]. If you own
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > a bug currently in the burndown, please
>>> double-check
>>> >>         if it is truly
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > release-blocking.
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > >
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > I've gone ahead and cut a release-2.10.0
>>> branch from
>>> >>         the current master,
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > since it is green. If it turns out to be
>>> an
>>> >>         inauspicious starting point,
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > we can always reset it.
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > >
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > Kenn
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > >
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > [1]
>>> >>          > >>> > >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=0p73sl034k80oob7seouanigd0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles
>>> >>
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > > [2]
>>> >>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/BEAM/versions/12344540
>>> >>          > >>> > >      >
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > --
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > [email protected] <mailto:
>>> [email protected]>
>>> >>         <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> >>          > >>> > >      > Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>> >>          > >>> > >
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback
>

Reply via email to