If we can, by the apache guidelines, post RCs to pypy that is definitely the way to go. (Note that test.pypi is for developing against the pypi interface, not for pushing anything real.) The caveat about naming these with rcN in the version number still applies (that's how pypi guards them against non-explicit installs).
The advantage is that a user can do "pip install --pre apache-beam" to get the latest rc rather than "pip install https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/changing/and/ephemeral/path"; On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:34 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> wrote: > > Aw that's interesting! > > I think, with these considerations, I am only marginally more inclined > towards publishing to test.pypi. That would make me a +0.9 on publishing RCs > to the main pip repo then. > > Thanks for doing the research Ahmet. :) > Best > -P > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:53 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >> >> I asked to Airflow folks about this. See [1] for the full response and a >> link to one of their RC emails. To summarize their position (specifically >> for pypi) is: Unless a user does something explicit (such as using a flag, >> or explicitly requesting an rc release), pip install will not serve RC >> binaries. And that is compatible with RC section of >> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-types >> >> Ahmet >> >> [1] >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f1f342332c1e180f57d60285bebe614ffa77bb53c4f74c4cbc049096@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E >> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:38 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> The incremental value of publishing python artifacts to a separate place >>> but not to actual pypi listing will be low. Users can already download RC >>> artifacts, or even pip install from http location directly. I think the >>> incremental value will be low, because for a user or a downstream library >>> to test with Beam RCs using their usual ways will still require them to get >>> other dependencies from the regular pypi listing. That would mean they need >>> to change their setup to test with beam rcs, which is the same state as >>> today. There will be some incremental value of putting them in more obvious >>> places (e.g. pypi test repository). I would rather not complicate the >>> release process for doing this. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:25 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Pip is also able to be pointed at any raw hosted directory for the >>>> install, right? So we could publish RCs or snapshots somewhere with more >>>> obvious caveats and not interfere with the pypi list of actual releases. >>>> Much like the Java snapshots are stored in a separate opt-in repository. >>>> >>>> Kenn >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:39 AM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > wouldn't that be in conflict with Apache release policy [1] ? >>>>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, advertising pre-release artifacts is against ASF rules. For >>>>> example, Flink was asked to remove a link to the Maven snapshot >>>>> repository from their download page. >>>>> >>>>> However, that does not mean we cannot publish Python artifacts. We just >>>>> have to clearly mark them for developers only and not advertise them >>>>> alongside with the official releases. >>>>> >>>>> -Max >>>>> >>>>> On 25.04.19 10:23, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>>>> > Don't we push java artifacts to maven repositories as part of the RC >>>>> > process? And completely unvetted snapshots? (Or is this OK because >>>>> > they are special opt-in apache-only ones?) >>>>> > >>>>> > I am generally in favor of the idea, but would like to avoid increased >>>>> > toil on the release manager. >>>>> > >>>>> > One potential hitch I see is that current release process updates the >>>>> > versions to x.y.z (no RC or other pre-release indicator in the version >>>>> > number) whereas pypi (and other systems) typically expect distinct >>>>> > (recognizable) version numbers for each attempt, and only the actual >>>>> > final result has the actual final release version. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:38 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I do not know the answer.I believe this will be similar to sharing the >>>>> >> RC artifacts for validation purposes and would not be a formal release >>>>> >> by itself. But I am not an expert and I hope others will share their >>>>> >> opinions. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I quickly searched pypi for apache projects and found at least airflow >>>>> >> [1] and libcloud [2] are publishing rc artifacts to pypi. We can reach >>>>> >> out to those communities and learn about their processes. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Ahmet >>>>> >> >>>>> >> [1] https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow/#history >>>>> >> [2] https://pypi.org/project/apache-libcloud/#history >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 6:15 PM Michael Luckey <adude3...@gmail.com> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Hi, >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> wouldn't that be in conflict with Apache release policy [1] ? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:35 AM Alan Myrvold <amyrv...@google.com> >>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Great idea. I like the RC candidates to follow as much as the >>>>> >>>> release artifact process as possible. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To clarify my proposal, I am proposing publishing to the production >>>>> >>>>> pypi repository with an rc tag in the version. And in turn allow >>>>> >>>>> users to depend on beam's rc version + all the other regular >>>>> >>>>> dependencies users would have directly from pypi. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Publishing to test pypi repo would also be helpful if test pypi >>>>> >>>>> repo also mirrors other packages that exist in the production pypi >>>>> >>>>> repository. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:12 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think this is a great idea. A way of doing it for python would >>>>> >>>>>> be by using the test repository for PyPi[1], and that way we would >>>>> >>>>>> not have to do an official PyPi release, but still would be able >>>>> >>>>>> to install it with pip (by passing an extra flag), and test. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In fact, there are some Beam artifacts already in there[2]. At >>>>> >>>>>> some point I looked into this, but couldn't figure out who has >>>>> >>>>>> access/the password for it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I also don't know who owns beam package in test pypi repo. Does >>>>> >>>>> anybody know? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In short: +1, and I would suggest using the test PyPi repo to >>>>> >>>>>> avoid publishing to the main PyPi repo. >>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>>> -P. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://test.pypi.org/ >>>>> >>>>>> [2] https://test.pypi.org/project/apache-beam/ >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:04 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think about the idea of publishing pre-release >>>>> >>>>>>> artifacts as part of the RC emails? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> For Python this would translate into publishing the same >>>>> >>>>>>> artifacts from RC email with a version like "2.X.0rcY" to pypi. I >>>>> >>>>>>> do not know, but I am guessing we can do a similar thing with >>>>> >>>>>>> Maven central for Java artifacts as well. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Advantages would be: >>>>> >>>>>>> - Allow end users to validate RCs for their own purposes using >>>>> >>>>>>> the same exact process they will normally use. >>>>> >>>>>>> - Enable early-adaptors to start using RC releases early on in >>>>> >>>>>>> the release cycle if that is what they would like to do. This >>>>> >>>>>>> will in turn reduce time pressure on some releases. Especially >>>>> >>>>>>> for cases like someone needs a release to be finalized for an >>>>> >>>>>>> upcoming event. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> There will also be disadvantages, some I could think of: >>>>> >>>>>>> - Users could request support for RC artifacts. Hopefully in the >>>>> >>>>>>> form of feedback for us to improve the release. But it could also >>>>> >>>>>>> be in the form of folks using RC artifacts for production for a >>>>> >>>>>>> long time. >>>>> >>>>>>> - It will add toil to the current release process, there will be >>>>> >>>>>>> one more step for each RC. I think for python this will be a >>>>> >>>>>>> small step but nevertheless it will be additional work. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> For an example of this, you can take a look at tensorflow >>>>> >>>>>>> releases. For 1.13 there were 3 pre-releases [1]. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Ahmet >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> [1] https://pypi.org/project/tensorflow/#history
