Hi all, Re-raising this thread. I got busy for the last month, and also did not want to overlap the 2.13.0 release process. Now I want to pick up 2.7.1 again.
Can everyone check on any bug they have targeted to 2.7.1 [1] and get the backports merged to release-2.7.1 and the tickets resolved? Kenn [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.7.1%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:19 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > I agree with both keeping 2.7.x going until a new LTS is declared and > declaring LTS spost-release after some use. 2.12 might actually be a good > candidate, with multiple RCs/validations it presumably is well tested. We > can consider that after it gets some real world use. > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:29 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > wrote: > >> IIRC, there was some talk on making 2.12 the next LTS, but the >> consensus is to decide on a LTS after having had some experience with >> it, not at or before the release itself. >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:04 PM Alexey Romanenko >> <aromanenko....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks for working on this, Kenn. >> > >> > Perhaps, I missed this but has it been already discussed/decided what >> will be the next LTS release? >> > >> > On 26 Apr 2019, at 08:02, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > Since it is all trivially reversible if there is some other feeling >> about this thread, I have gone ahead and started the work: >> > >> > - I made release-2.7.1 branch point to the same commit as >> release-2.7.0 so there is something to target PRs >> > - I have opened the first PR, cherry-picking the set_version script >> and using it to set the version on the branch to 2.7.1: >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8407 (found bug in the new script >> right away :-) >> > >> > Here is the release with list of issues: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/BEAM/versions/12344458. So >> anyone can grab a ticket and volunteer to open a backport PR to the >> release-2.7.1 branch. >> > >> > I don't have a strong opinion about how long we should support the >> 2.7.x line. I am curious about different perspectives on user / vendor >> needs. I have two very basic thoughts: (1) we surely need to keep it going >> until some time after we have another LTS designated, to make sure there is >> a clear path for anyone only using LTS releases and (2) if we decide to end >> support of 2.7.x but then someone volunteers to backport and release, of >> course I would not expect anyone to block them, so it has no maximum >> lifetime, but we just need consensus on a minimum. And of course that >> consensus cannot force anyone to do the work, but is just a resolution of >> the community. >> > >> > Kenn >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:29 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> +1 it sounds good to me. >> >> >> >> Thanks ! >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> JB >> >> >> >> On 26/04/2019 02:42, Kenneth Knowles wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> >> > >> >> > Since the release of 2.7.0 we have identified some serious bugs: >> >> > >> >> > - There are 8 (non-dupe) issues* tagged with Fix Version 2.7.1 >> >> > - 2 are rated "Blocker" (aka P0) but I think the others may be >> underrated >> >> > - If you know of a critical bug that is not on that list, please >> file >> >> > an LTS backport ticket for it >> >> > >> >> > If a user is on an old version and wants to move to the LTS, there >> are >> >> > some real blockers. I propose that we perform a 2.7.1 release >> starting now. >> >> > >> >> > I volunteer to manage the release. What do you think? >> >> > >> >> > Kenn >> >> > >> >> > *Some are "resolved" but this is not accurate as the LTS 2.7.1 >> branch is >> >> > not created yet. I suggest filing a ticket to track just the LTS >> >> > backport when you hit a bug that merits it. >> >> > >> > >> > >> >
