On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:01 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote:
> Taking a step back, the goal of avoiding cherry-picks is to reduce > risk and increase the velocity of our releases, as otherwise the > release manager gets inundated by a never ending list of features > people want to get in that puts the releases further and further > behind (increasing the desire to get features in in a vicious cycle). > On the flip side, the reason we have a release process with candidates > and voting (as opposed to just declaring a commit id every N weeks to > be "the release") is to give us the flexibility to achieve a level of > quality and polish that may not ever occur in HEAD itself. > > With regards to this specific cross-langauge fix, the motivation is > that those working on it at Google want to widely publish this feature > as newly available on Dataflow. The question to answer here (Cham) is > whether this bug is debilitating enough that were it not to be in the > release we would want to hold off advertising this (and related) > features until the next release. (In my understanding, it would result > in a poor enough user experience that it is.) > Yes, I think we will have to either hold off on widely publishing the feature or list this as a potential issue that will be fixed in the next release for anybody who tries cross-language pipelines and runs into this. Note that we are getting in a Python Kafka example [1]. So users will potentially try this out anyways. [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12188 > > On the other hand, there's the question of the cost of getting this > fix into the release. The change is simple and well contained, so I > think the risk is low (and, in particular, the cost to include it here > is low enough that it's worth the value provided above). > > Looking at the other proposals, > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12196 also seems to meet this bar > (there are possible xlang correctness issues at play here), as does > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12175 (mostly due to its > simplicity and the fact that doing it later would be a backwards > compatible change). I'm on the fence about > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12171 (if an RC2 is in the works > anyway), and IMHO the others are less compelling as having to be done > now. > +1 > > (On the question of a point release, IMHO anything worth considering > for an x.y.1 release definitely meets the bar for inclusion into an RC > of an ongoing release.) > > - Robert > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 8:00 PM Chamikara Jayalath <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 7:46 PM Chamikara Jayalath <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 7:28 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 19:07 Chamikara Jayalath <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 6:16 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback, help with release validation, and for > reaching out on dev@ regarding a cherry-pick request. > >>>>> > >>>>> BEAM-10397 pertains to new functionality (xlang support on > Dataflow). Are there any reasons that this fix cannot wait until 2.24.0 > (release cut date 4 weeks from now)? > >>>>> > >>>>> For transparency, I would like to list other cherry-pick requests > that I received off-the list (stakeholders bcc'ed): > >>>>> - https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12175 > >>>>> - https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12196 > >>>>> - https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12171 > >>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10492 (recently added) > >>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10385 > >>>>> - https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12187 (was available before > any of RC1 artifacts were created and integrated) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> My main concern is Python changes in > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12164. Other changes (at least > related to x-lang) can wait. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> My response to such requests is guided by the release guide [1]: > >>>>> > >>>>> - None of the issues were a regression from a previous release. > >>>>> - Most are related to new or recently introduced functionality. > >>>>> - 3 of the requests are related to xlang io, which is very exciting > and important functionality, but arguably does not impact a large > percentage of [existing] users. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Agree that this is not a regression from the previous release but it > may result in inconsistent behavior when users execute x-lang pipelines. > Actually I think this is a pretty serious issue for portability (we are not > setting the environment in WindowingStrategy) but for some reason we are > not hitting this in other tests. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So they do not seem to be release-blocking according to the guide. > >>>>> > >>>>> At this point creating a new RC would delay 2.23.0 availability by > at least a week. While a new RC will improve the stability of xlang IO, it > will also delay the release of features and bug fixes available in 2.23.0. > It will also create a precedent of inconsistency with release policy. > Should we delay the release if we discover another xlang issue during > validation next week? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> To be honest, I don't think re-validating after the cherry-pick > mentioned above will take a week (unless we find other issues). We just > need to rebuild and re-validate the Python distribution and may be rebuild > Dataflow containers. I'm volunteering to help you with this :) > >>> > >>> > >>> I was taking 72hrs of voting Window into account that must happen > outside of the weekend and the fact that I will be OOO for one day. > >> > >> > >> Got it. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> If the issue you mention seriously impacts (can cause data loss, > pipeline failures) all of users on portable stack or other large user base > (not just cross-language support in Dataflow (new user-base) ), this is > definitely a candidate for an ASAP fix. > >>> > >>> What is your assessment of the size of the user base that is affected > by the issue (large, medium, small, does not affect production for any of > existing users)? > >> > >> > >> Impact today I think is low but potential for impact in the future is > high. For example, if we update Dataflow service or portable runners to > require environment in WindowingStrategy, we'll have to either fork for > this or require users to upgrade to a Beam version with the fix. > > > > > > Actually, ignore the "portable runners" part. Seems like we already set > "context.default_environment_id()" in the WindowingStrategy so impact is > likely only for Dataflow where we do not set an environment_id in > serialized WindowingStrategy that is set in GBK. > > > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Cham > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> My preferred course of action is to continue with RC0, since release > velocity is important for product health. > >>>>> > >>>>> Given that we are having this conversation, we can revise the > cherry-pick policy if we think it does not adequately cover this situation. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Agree. We have a very strong policy currently regarding cherry-picks > but it's up to the release manager to look into requests on a case-by-case > basis. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We can also propose a patch-version release with urgent > cherry-picks (release 2.23.1), or consider a faster release cadence if 6 > weeks is too slow. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Honestly I don't think this is practical. Making a new patch release, > validation, vote etc will take 2 weeks or so. We either should cherry-pick > this into current release or wait till the next one. I think patch releases > should be reserved for critical updates to LTS releases. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Cham > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Valentyn > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] > https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#review-cherry-picks > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:41 PM Chamikara Jayalath < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I agree. I think Dataflow x-lang users could run into flaky > pipelines due to this. Valentyn, are you OK with creating a new RC that > includes the fix (already merged - > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12164) and preferably > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12196 ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Cham > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:27 PM Heejong Lee <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think we need to cherry-pick > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10397 which fixes missing > environment errors for Dataflow xlang pipelines. Internally, we have a > flaky xlang kafkaio test because of missing environment errors and any > xlang pipelines using GroupByKey could encounter this. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:08 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:55 PM Robert Bradshaw < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> All the artifacts, signatures, and hashes look good. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the severity of > >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10397 before giving > my > >>>>>>>>> vote. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +Heejong Lee to comment on this. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:51 AM Pablo Estrada < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > +1 > >>>>>>>>> > I was able to run the python 3.8 quickstart from wheels on > DirectRunner. > >>>>>>>>> > I verified hashes for Python files. > >>>>>>>>> > -P. > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:34 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> I validated the python 3 quickstarts. I had issues with > running with python 3.8 wheel files, but did not have issues with source > distributions, or other python wheel files. I have not tested python 2 > quickstarts. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Did someone validate python 3.8 wheels on Dataflow? I was not > able to run that. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:53 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> >>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> >>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the > version 2.23.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint > 1DF50603225D29A4 [3], > >>>>>>>>> >>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central > Repository [4], > >>>>>>>>> >>> * source code tag "v2.23.0-RС1" [5], > >>>>>>>>> >>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing > the API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8]. > >>>>>>>>> >>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.0 and Oracle JDK > 1.8.0_201-b09 . > >>>>>>>>> >>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source > release to the dist.apache.org [2]. > >>>>>>>>> >>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.23.0 release to help > with validation [9]. > >>>>>>>>> >>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10]. > >>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> >>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted > by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. > >>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> >>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>> >>> Release Manager > >>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>>> >>> [1] > https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347145 > >>>>>>>>> >>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.23.0/ > >>>>>>>>> >>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS > >>>>>>>>> >>> [4] > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1105/ > >>>>>>>>> >>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.23.0-RC1 > >>>>>>>>> >>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12212 > >>>>>>>>> >>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/605 > >>>>>>>>> >>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/12213 > >>>>>>>>> >>> [9] > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=596347973 > >>>>>>>>> >>> [10] > https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image >
