Checking that JIRA link sounds reasonable as long as we can agree that it is single source of truth for cherry pick requests. I also agree with Cham, requests need to come with a reason.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:38 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think we need anything fancier or marking even as Blocker some > of this stuff, would not be enough just to monitor that [1] has no > issues? (of course if the interested party has not put the fix version > to the current ongoing vote one this is a mistake). > > [1] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.13.0 > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:23 PM Chamikara Jayalath <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:02 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I would suggest have a single way of tracking cherry pick request to an > RC. Currently we use emails on the RC thread, open PRs, and Jiras tagged > for the release. This is confusing the person doing the release while they > are juggling multiple things. How about we ask all cherry pick requests to > have a JIRA filed against that release and marked as blockers? > > > > > > I agree with this and with what Ankur said. Release blockers should be > more explicit and should come with a reason. After voting thread start, I > would say this should include a mail to the voting thread as well as a > blocking JIRA. Other PRs opened against the branch may or may not get > merged at the discretion of the release manager. > > > > Thanks, > > Cham > > > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ankur Goenka <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> That makes sense. > >>> I would also like to add that the corresponding PR should be added to > an open blocking Jira for the release to keep a single source to check. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:15 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I would actually suggest that the following search needs to be > triaged to zero before cutting an RC: > https://github.com/apache/beam/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+base%3Arelease-2.13.0 > . > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:17 AM Ankur Goenka <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Sorry, I missed the comment for not including weekend's to 72 hours > voting period. > >>>>> > >>>>> I meant to update the blog post > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8667/files once we have finalized the > RC so that it can be consistent. Please add any comments to PR and I can > incorporate them. > >>>>> > >>>>> As we did not go for 3rd RC and > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was not blocking the 2.13 > release, I went with the release. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can > not do another RC for 2.13.0. > >>>>> If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix > release 2.13.1. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This seems a rushed and things fall through the cracks. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Max had requested to not include the weekend into the voting period. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Valentyn: I had the same question on the first RC. The PR should be > included into the vote for review. You can find it here: > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8667/files > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC: > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 - It's not blocking but would > be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this branch. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Thomas > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The summary is not correct. Binding votes (in order): > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ahmet Altay > >>>>>>> Robert Bradshaw > >>>>>>> Maximilian Michels > >>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >>>>>>> Lukasz Cwik > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A total of 5 binding votes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 04.06.19 02:37, Ankur Goenka wrote: > >>>>>>> > +1 > >>>>>>> > Thanks for validating the release and voting. > >>>>>>> > With 0(-1), 6(+1) and 3(+1 binding) votes, I am concluding the > voting > >>>>>>> > process. > >>>>>>> > I am going ahead with the release and will keep the community > posted > >>>>>>> > with the updates. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:57 PM Andrew Pilloud < > [email protected] > >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > +1 Reviewed the Nexmark java and SQL perfkit graphs, no > obvious > >>>>>>> > regressions over the previous release. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:15 PM Lukasz Cwik <[email protected] > >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Thanks for the clarification. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:40 AM Ankur Goenka < > [email protected] > >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Yes, i meant i will close the voting at 5pm and > start the > >>>>>>> > release process. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 10:59 AM Lukasz Cwik < > [email protected] > >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Ankur, did you mean to say your going to close > the vote > >>>>>>> > today at 5pm? (and then complete the release > afterwards) > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:54 AM Ankur Goenka > >>>>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Thanks for validating and voting. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > We have 4 binding votes. > >>>>>>> > I will complete the release today 5PM. > Please raise > >>>>>>> > any concerns before that. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Thanks, > >>>>>>> > Ankur > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:36 AM Lukasz Cwik > >>>>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Since the gearpump issue has been > ongoing since > >>>>>>> > 2.10, I can't consider it a blocker for > this > >>>>>>> > release and am voting +1. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:13 AM > Jean-Baptiste > >>>>>>> > Onofré <[email protected] > >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > +1 (binding) > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Quickly tested on beam-samples. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Regards > >>>>>>> > JB > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > On 31/05/2019 04:52, Ankur Goenka > wrote: > >>>>>>> > > Hi everyone, > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > Please review and vote on the > release > >>>>>>> > candidate #2 for the version > >>>>>>> > > 2.13.0, as follows: > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > [ ] +1, Approve the release > >>>>>>> > > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release > >>>>>>> > (please provide specific comments) > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > The complete staging area is > available > >>>>>>> > for your review, which includes: > >>>>>>> > > * JIRA release notes [1], > >>>>>>> > > * the official Apache source > release to > >>>>>>> > be deployed to dist.apache.org > >>>>>>> > <http://dist.apache.org> > >>>>>>> > > <http://dist.apache.org> [2], > which is > >>>>>>> > signed with the key with > >>>>>>> > > fingerprint > >>>>>>> > > 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3], > >>>>>>> > > * all artifacts to be deployed to > the > >>>>>>> > Maven Central Repository [4], > >>>>>>> > > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" > [5], > >>>>>>> > > * website pull request listing the > >>>>>>> > release [6] and publishing the API > >>>>>>> > > reference manual [7]. > >>>>>>> > > * Python artifacts are deployed > along > >>>>>>> > with the source release to the > >>>>>>> > > dist.apache.org < > http://dist.apache.org> > >>>>>>> > <http://dist.apache.org> [2]. > >>>>>>> > > * Validation sheet with a tab for > 2.13.0 > >>>>>>> > release to help with validation > >>>>>>> > > [8]. > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > The vote will be open for at > least 72 > >>>>>>> > hours. It is adopted by majority > >>>>>>> > > approval, with at least 3 PMC > affirmative > >>>>>>> > votes. > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > Thanks, > >>>>>>> > > Ankur > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > [1] > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12345166 > >>>>>>> > > [2] > >>>>>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/ > >>>>>>> > > [3] > >>>>>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS > >>>>>>> > > [4] > >>>>>>> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/ > >>>>>>> > > [5] > >>>>>>> > > https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2 > >>>>>>> > > [6] > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645 > >>>>>>> > > [7] > >>>>>>> > > https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589 > >>>>>>> > > [8] > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952 > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > -- > >>>>>>> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >>>>>>> > [email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]> > >>>>>>> > http://blog.nanthrax.net > >>>>>>> > Talend - http://www.talend.com > >>>>>>> > >
