+1 (binding) Ran some Python scenarios and updated the spreadsheet.
Thanks, Cham On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Any chance we could include https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548? >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
