I just don't see a reason to believe there's a rush? just test it as normal? I did, you can too, etc. Or specifically what blocks the current RC?
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 5:46 PM Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > No worries about the accident. We're human beings, and everyone can make a > mistake. Let's wait and see the response of INFRA-21266. > > Just a 2 cents, I'm actually leaning toward to skip 3.1.0 and start the > release process for 3.1.1, as anyone could be some sort of "rushing" on > verification on 3.1.0. As we're already biased by the fact the release is > already available, the RC might not be tested intensively and extensively. > I'm also OK to continue verification on RC1 and consider this as official > 3.1.0 once vote passes if we are sure to do the normal release candidate QA > without bias. (I mean skipping some verifications they normally did, or > consider serious bugs to be "later" based on the expectation that 3.1.1 > comes pretty soon.) > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 6:56 AM Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Dongjoon, Sean and Tom. I just thought that we could have some >> more bug fixes or some changes if RC1 passes as a regular release due to >> the relatively fewer RCs. >> I agree that if this RC passes, it's just that an RC passed normally per >> the regular process, and there's nothing wrong here. By right, there >> shouldn't be any special treatment or difference in 3.1.1. >> I more meant a practical point that we might happen to face some more bug >> fixes or breaking changes (of course as an exception) that happens >> sometimes. >> >> >> 2021년 1월 7일 (목) 오전 6:44, Tom Graves <tgraves...@yahoo.com>님이 작성: >> >>> I think it makes sense to wait and see what they say on INFRA-21266 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21266>. >>> >>> In the mean time hopefully people can start testing it and if no other >>> problems found and vote passes can stay published. It seems like the 2 >>> issues above wouldn't be blockers in my opinion and could be handled in a >>> 3.1.1 but others can chime too. >>> >>> If we find other issues with it in testing and they can't revert in >>> INFRA-21266 - I assume we handle by putting some documentation out there >>> telling people not to use it and we go to 3.1.1. >>> >>> One thing I didn't follow was the comment: "release 3.1.1 fast that >>> exceptionally allows a bit of breaking changes" - what do you mean by that? >>> >>> if there is anything we can add to our release process documentation to >>> prevent in the future that would be great as well. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> On Wednesday, January 6, 2021, 03:07:26 PM CST, Hyukjin Kwon < >>> gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes, it was my mistake. I faced the same issue as INFRA-20651 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-20651>, and it is worse in >>> my case because I misunderstood that RC and releases are separately >>> released out. >>> Right after this, I filed an INFRA JIRA to revert this at INFRA-21266 >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21266>. We can wait and >>> see how it goes. >>> >>> Though, I know it’s impossible to remove by right. It is possible to >>> overwrite but it will affect people who already have it in their cache. >>> I am thinkthing two options: >>> >>> - Skip 3.1.0 and release 3.1.1 right away since the release isn’t >>> officially out to the main Apache repo/mirrors but only one of the >>> downstream channels. We can just say that there was something wrong >>> during >>> the 3.1.0 release so it became 3.1.1 right away. >>> >>> >>> - Release 3.1.0 out, of course, based on the vote results here. We >>> could release 3.1.1 fast that exceptionally allows a bit of breaking >>> changes with properly documenting it in a release note and migration >>> guide. >>> >>> I would appreciate it if I could hear other people' opinions. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
