Pulling out the relevant pypi bit w.r.t. RCs:
> - Release candidates, nightly or snapshots need to be clearly tagged as > pre-release on https://pypi.org/project/apache<project>/#history > - The latest version should not point to an artefact containing unapproved > code e.g. to a release candidate or snapshot > These guidelines were pending assessment by legal & infra. I don't know if there has been an update. It has been a few months. Kenn On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:51 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, and here's one on general@incubator specifically about RCs: > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c4afcf0807d71f844d912a7e5fe6b481f0779bdcf88ccf9abe50a160@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E > > Kenn > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:49 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd suggest looking for experience beyond Beam and Airflow. I don't see >> links to some relevant threads. >> >> Here's one from legal-discuss@ about binary channels and how they relate >> to source releases: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d578819f1afa6b8fb697ea72083e0fb05e43938a23d6e7bb804069b8@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E >> >> Here's one from the incubator about how RCs and tags relate to ASF >> release policy: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982077ef279e50b260d302d96685e40be6fcabdb0bd43d519621cf27@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E >> >> (apologies if these are duplicate links - I re-scanned the thread and did >> not spot them) >> >> Kenn >> >> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:43 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 5:24 PM Michael Luckey <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Thanks Ahmet for calling out to the airflow folks. I believe, I am >>> able to follow their argument. So from my point of view I do not have an >>> issue with apache policy. But honestly still trying to wrap my head around >>> Roberts concern with rebuilding/resigning. Currently, our actual release is >>> only a tag on source repo and promoting artefacts. Do not yet understand >>> how that needs to change to get PyPi included. >>> >>> It's not a big change, but let me clarify. >>> >>> Currently our release preparation goes something like this: >>> >>> 1) Check out the repo, update the versions to 2.x, build and sign the >>> artifacts. >>> 2) Announce these artifacts as rcN >>> 2a) Push the artifacts to SVN dev/... >>> 2b) Push artifacts to the apache maven repository. >>> 3) Depending on vote, go back to step (1) or forward to step (4). >>> 4) Copy these artifacts as the actual release. >>> >>> Now if we just try to add (2c) Push these artifacts to Pypi, it will >>> be treated (by pypi's tooling, anyone who downloads the tarball, ...) >>> as an actual release. You also can't re-push a tarball with the same >>> name and different contents (the idea being that named releases should >>> never change). So we'd need to change step (1) to update the version >>> to 2.x.rcN *and* add a step in (4) to update the version to 2.x (no rc >>> suffix), rebuild, resign before publishing. >>> >>> As mentioned, possibly the rcN suffix could be part of the building >>> step for Python. >>> >>> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:33 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Michael, Max and other folks who are concerned about the >>> compatibility with the apache release policy. Does the information in this >>> thread sufficiently address your concerns? Especially the part where, the >>> rc artifacts will be protected by a flag (i.e. --pre) from general >>> consumption. >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 3:59 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:11 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > This conversation get quite Python centric. Is there a similar >>> need for Java? >>> >>> >>> >>> I think Java is already covered. Go is a different story (but the >>> even >>> >>> versioning and releasing is being worked out). >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:54 AM Robert Bradshaw < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 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). >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Related to the caveat, I believe this can be easily scripted or >>> even made part of the travis/wheels pipeline to take the release branch, >>> edit the version string in place to add rc, and build the necessary files. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes. But the resulting artifacts would have to be rebuilt (and >>> >>> re-signed) without the version edit for the actual release. (Well, we >>> >>> could possibly edit the artifacts rather than rebuild them.) And >>> >>> pushing un-edited ones early would be really bad. (It's the classic >>> >>> tension of whether a pre-release should be marked internally or >>> >>> externally, re-publishing a new set of bits for the actual release or >>> >>> re-using version numbers for different sets of bits. Pypi does one, >>> >>> apache does another...) >>> >>> >>> >>> >> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 >>> >>
