I'm afraid I've had no time to make progress on the things I filed during the 2.10.0 release, or the discussion of using a simpler git commit model for setting up RCs.
Kenn On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 7:14 AM Michael Luckey <[email protected]> wrote: > Oops, of course. [email protected] <[email protected]> > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:53 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Did you mean to reply-all to the dev@ list too? >> >> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:50 PM Michael Luckey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks, @Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> We need to look into those >>> issues. >>> >>> Opened PR [1], which should enable releasing with gradle 5. Also >>> stumbled upon usage of gradle release plugin [2] and version management >>> [3]. Both of them were somehow part of discussion on mailing list [4]. Not >>> sure about progress here, @Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8026 >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6798 >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6799 >>> [4] >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 2:23 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:55 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:42 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > This sounds good to me. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:32 PM Michael Luckey <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Thanks for your comments. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> So to continue here, I ll prepare a PR implementing C: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Pass the sign key to the relevant scripts and use that for signing. >>>>> There is something similar already implemented [1] >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We might discuss on that, whether it will work for us or if we need >>>>> to implement something different. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> This should affect at least 'build_release_candidate.sh' and >>>>> 'sign_hash_python_wheels.sh'. The release manager is responsible for >>>>> selecting the proper key. Currently there is no 'state passed between the >>>>> scripts', so the release manager will have to specify this repeatedly. >>>>> This >>>>> could probably be improved later on. >>>>> > >>>>> > This might become a problem. Is it possible for us to tackle this >>>>> sooner than later? >>>>> >>>>> Requiring a key seems to be a good first step. (Personally, I like to >>>>> be very explicit about what I sign.) Supporting defaults (e.g. in a >>>>> ~/.beam-release config file) is a nice to have. >>>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> @Ahmet Altay Could you elaborate which global state you are >>>>> referring to? Is it only that git global configuration of the signing key? >>>>> [2] >>>>> > >>>>> > I was referring to things not related to signing. I do not want to >>>>> digress this thread but briefly I was referring to global installations of >>>>> binaries with sudo and changes to bashrc file. We can work on those >>>>> improvements separately. >>>>> >>>>> That's really bad. +1 to fixing these (as a separate bug). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6795 with some >>>> additional information. >>>> >>>
