Regarding Dan's questions: 1. I'm not sure - it is built with spark-*_2.10 but I honestly don't know if this matters for the runner itself, it could be nice to have in order to be more informative. In addition, this will change with Spark 2.0 to Scala 2.11 AFAIK. 2. This is to allow running out-of-the-box examples I guess. The Flink runner just tells you how to do it on your own here: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/master/runners/flink Would you say this is a better approach ?
In any case, packaging is necessary to run on cluster and the shading rules are there for Guava - Beam/Hadoop.. On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:14 PM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > I like the compromise on the Maven naming scheme. Thanks for > incorporating all the feedback! > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > Hi Taylor, > > > > Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on > > repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org only > when > > the vote passed. > > > > Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will > > document) is: > > - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform > > - Close repo > > - Start vote > > - If passed, forward vote to incubator > > - If passed, close repo > > - Upload distro to dist > > - Announce the release (mailing lists, website) > > > > It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > >> > >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on > >> repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? > >> > >> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven > >> artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives > and > >> convenience binaries). > >> > >> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. > >> > >> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. > >> > >> -Taylor > >> > >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.INVALID> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everyone! > >>> We've started the release process for our first release, > >>> 0.1.0-incubating. > >>> > >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional > goals > >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently > >>> in > >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. > >>> > >>> With this in mind, we've: > >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, > >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, > >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging > >>> repository [2]. > >>> > >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a > >>> few > >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a > >>> peek > >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible > before > >>> we > >>> start the voting process. > >>> > >>> Please let us know if you see any issues. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Davor > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating > >>> [2] > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > jbono...@apache.org > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
