I do not reproduce the Nexmark regression locally with A/B testing on different commits, and I believe it is not blocking the release. A possible reason for the change in Nexmark performance is migration to Jenkins CI, see [1] for details. I will proceed with creating & publishing RC2 artifacts now.
The RC1 VOTE is considered closed. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10542?focusedCommentId=17162374&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17162374 On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:13 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <[email protected]> wrote: > > RCs are the point when we expect people to > > discover and test features, that's the whole point of RCs otherwise we > will > > release as it is, so they are the perfect moment to fix issues, in > particular if > > during the RC tests we discover that new features produce unexpected > > regressions, inconsistent behavior, bad designed APIs or security issues. > > Regressions are a strong reason to pause the release train, no matter if > caused by a new functionality or not. However polishing new functionality > at the expense of delaying other improvements and features is > questionable. I believe most issues raised as cherry-pick candidates for > 2.23.0 were discovered not during RC validation but independently as more > data was gathered using the feature in developer testing. If our goal were > to make releases more polished, we should add a longer buffer between > cutting the release, making an RC and promoting an RC to a release. It > would also help to lower the barrier for users to use the RCs (for > example, to release Python RC artifacts to PyPi). However no matter how > thoroughly we test new features in RCs, more issues will inevitably be > discovered by users later, and it will be important to get the fixes out > for the users fast. Users affected by an issue in existing functionality > probably won't appreciate that a release with a fix is delayed because we > are adding new functionality, and we need to polish new functionality > before we can release. So my preference is for frequent releases, > up-to-date announcements in Known Issues / user@ whenever a critical > issue is discovered. I also agree with Kenn that it makes sense to have > major features be baked in at least one release before major announcements > to have more confidence in quality. > > Thanks a lot for pointing out the Nexmark regression, Ismaël. I will take > a look: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10542. > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:43 PM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > As a general rule, fixes pertaining to new functionality are not a good >> > candidate for a cherry-pick. >> >> I disagree with this statement, RCs are the point when we expect people to >> discover and test features, that's the whole point of RCs otherwise we >> will >> release as it is, so they are the perfect moment to fix issues, in >> particular if >> during the RC tests we discover that new features produce unexpected >> regressions, inconsistent behavior, bad designed APIs or security issues. >> >> The task of release manager is not easy and I understand that we should >> follow >> the rules to get the release out but getting a release out quickly is not >> necessarily the main goal, quality matters and the goal of release >> validation is >> in part to ensure quality, if this implies cherry picks and new vote + >> RCs, >> that's a pity but it is worth. >> >> Now talking about this release I don't know if somebody has mentioned it >> but >> when I looked at the nexmark dashboards [1] I see a consistent performance >> regression in all classic runners starting around the 16/06 so probably >> included >> in this version. I am OOO so I do not have enough free cycles to check >> this but >> if someone has I think it is worth to take a look. If this is >> important or not to >> block the release is again a gray area for Beam but still worth to track >> specially following the conversation that Max opened recently [2]. >> > [1] http://104.154.241.245/d/ahuaA_zGz/nexmark?orgId=1&from=now-90d&to=now >> [2] >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r2f6834a64cbc5610663007f5f0ec4d1c6a9726fadf0678d4cc17b018%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:20 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Agree. Great management of this release discussion. >> > >> > While I think Robert laid out the reasons for avoiding cherry picks >> very clearly, I just want to emphasize that it is *not* appropriate to >> treat every cherry pick according to risk/reward* which ignores the policy. >> The reasons for following a *policy* of avoiding cherrypicks are more >> important (community > code). Clear published policies: >> > >> > - set expectations for people developing code so they can know in >> advance whether or not their cherrypick fits the guidelines >> > - they also know that other cherrypicks will not delay their release >> unless it meets the guidelines >> > - objective guidelines help to eliminate bias, and also communicate >> that lack of bias; even just perception or suspicion of bias harms the >> community >> > >> > It is by agreeing on then following policy that we get a predictable >> and fair community process. Any "back to first principles" discussion needs >> to take into account the meta pro/con of having vs not having a policy. >> Assertions about difficulty of rolling a new RC or the risk of a change >> miss the bigger picture. >> > >> > Valentyn did a great job of being careful - and communicating - about >> all these things, so that's doubly excellent. >> > >> > One approach that helps to avoid risk in feature launches and cherry >> picks is to have the big announcement correspond with a flag flip, aka >> graduating to no longer be experimental. Ideally the completed code will >> have been available to users for (at least) a release cycle before >> considering graduation and widespread announcement. In this pattern it is >> also easier to weigh the impact of bugfixes for exceptions to the >> guidelines. >> > >> > Kenn >> > >> > *also risk/reward of a cherrypick is mostly uncertain subjective hand >> waving except for showstopper bugs or big stage product announcements >> > >> > p.s. FWIW setting a wrong environment is a critical correctness bug >> that I agree with Cham's assessment and totally agree with a cherrypick. >> Even though it isn't a regression itself, correct changes elsewhere can >> cause a regression so the user risk could be pretty high. >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 1:41 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> @Valentyn: Thank you for your transparency in the release process and >> >> for considering pending cherry-pick requests. No blockers from my side. >> >> >> >> -Max >> >> >> >> On 18.07.20 01:11, Ahmet Altay wrote: >> >> > Thank you Valentyn. Being a release manager is difficult. It requires >> >> > balancing between stability, following the process, regressions, >> >> > timelines. Thank you for following the process, thank you for asking >> the >> >> > right questions, thank you for doing the release. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:59 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected] >> >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Thank you, Valentyn! >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:25 PM Chamikara Jayalath >> >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:01 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev >> >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > >> As a general rule, fixes pertaining to new functionality are >> not >> >> > a good candidate for a cherry-pick. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> A case for an exception can be made for polishing features >> >> > related to major wide announcements with a hard deadline, which >> >> > appears to be the case for xlang on Dataflow. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> I will prepare an RC2 with xlang fixes and consider other >> >> > low-risk additions from issues that were brought to my attention. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > Thanks Valentyn. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Thanks >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Chamikara Jayalath >> >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:01 AM Robert Bradshaw >> >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > >>>> > >> >> > >>>> > >> >> > >>>> > >> >> > >>>> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 7:46 PM Chamikara Jayalath >> >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 7:28 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev >> >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > >>>> >>> >> >> > >>>> >>> >> >> > >>>> >>> >> >> > >>>> >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 19:07 Chamikara Jayalath >> >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 6:16 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev >> >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >> > >>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:55 PM Robert Bradshaw >> >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <http://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 <http://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 >> >> > >> >
