On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote:
> The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding) > > (The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't push? > https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py > ) > Good point. I'll highlight that I finally implemented the branching changes from https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E The new guide with diagram is here: https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#tag-a-chosen-commit-for-the-rc TL;DR: - the release branch continues to be dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.29.0 while the main branch is now dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.30.0 - the RC tag v2.29.0-RC1 no longer lies on the release branch. It is a single tagged commit that removes the dev/SNAPSHOT suffix Kenn > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Please take another look. >> >> - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and wheels are >> new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip and wheels have >> version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT). >> - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from exactly the >> RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to get the version to >> match. >> - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0 (not >> -SNAPSHOT). >> - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches the RC >> tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew) >> >> Kenn >> >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> At this point, the release train has just about come around to 2.30.0 >>> which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense to cherry-pick >>> anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As it is, I think we >>> have a good commit and just need to build the expected artifacts. Since it >>> isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just overwriting the RC1 >>> artifacts in question and re-verify. I could also roll a new RC2 from the >>> same commit fairly easily. >>> >>> Kenn >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Any chance we could include https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the >>>>> `master` branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this should >>>>> work in most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration, >>>>> which I cherrypicked >>>>> to the release branch. >>>>> >>>>> Kenn >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I >>>>>> don't think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged >>>>>> commit, but with the state of the release scripts at the time I built the >>>>>> earlier artifacts. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to >>>>>>> contain some release script changes that are not reflected in the github >>>>>>> branch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow >>>>>>>> worker containers then update this thread. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kenn >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold < >>>>>>>>> elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > 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 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3], >>>>>>>>>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository >>>>>>>>>> [4], >>>>>>>>>> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [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 MAVEN_VERSION and >>>>>>>>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> be filled in with numbers? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the >>>>>>>>> gradlew config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kenn >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Elliotte Rusty Harold >>>>>>>>>> elh...@ibiblio.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
