Re: How to Specify runtime Override GCP Project for Integration Tests?

[Pablo Estrada]

+Yifan Zou  perhaps you know how to pass these
parameters?

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:05 PM Jacob Ferriero  wrote:

> Hi Dev list,
>
> I'm wondering how to specify a runtime argument for `TestingPipeline` for
> integration tests (namely a GCP project id) in order to test against
> resources in my own project rather than "apache-beam-testing".
>
> In my integration test class I use:
> ```java
> String project =
> TestPipeline.testingPipelineOptions().as(GcpOptions.class).getProject();
> ```
>
> And my invocation looks like this:
> ```bash
> ./gradlew :sdks:java:io:google-cloud-platform:integrationTest \
> --tests "org.apache.beam.sdk.io.gcp.healthcare.HL7v2IOReadIT" \
> -PintegrationTest.args='--project=jferriero-dev'
> ```
>
> However project always seems to default to "apache-beam-testing".
> Is there a better / different way to pass this parameters?
> Should I just hard code project locally and remember to change later?
>
> Cheers,
>
> *Jacob Ferriero*
>
> Strategic Cloud Engineer: Data Engineering
>
> jferri...@google.com
>
> 617-714-2509 <(617)%20714-2509>
>

How to Specify runtime Override GCP Project for Integration Tests?

[Jacob Ferriero]

Hi Dev list,

I'm wondering how to specify a runtime argument for `TestingPipeline` for
integration tests (namely a GCP project id) in order to test against
resources in my own project rather than "apache-beam-testing".

In my integration test class I use:
```java
String project =
TestPipeline.testingPipelineOptions().as(GcpOptions.class).getProject();
```

And my invocation looks like this:
```bash
./gradlew :sdks:java:io:google-cloud-platform:integrationTest \
--tests "org.apache.beam.sdk.io.gcp.healthcare.HL7v2IOReadIT" \
-PintegrationTest.args='--project=jferriero-dev'
```

However project always seems to default to "apache-beam-testing".
Is there a better / different way to pass this parameters?
Should I just hard code project locally and remember to change later?

Cheers,

*Jacob Ferriero*

Strategic Cloud Engineer: Data Engineering

jferri...@google.com

617-714-2509

Permissions to GCP Integration Test Project for Healthcare Dataset

[Jacob Ferriero]

Hi Dev list,

I'd like to get access to create a Healthcare API dataset

to the GCP integration test project to stand up HL7v2 Stores and  FHIR
Stores to facilitate integration tests of Healthcare IO connectors like the
subject of #11151 . The
individual stores can be created / destroyed by the test classes themselves
but it'd be helpful to have a persistent Healthcare API dataset under which
these resources could live.

Cheers,

*Jacob Ferriero*

Strategic Cloud Engineer: Data Engineering

jferri...@google.com

617-714-2509

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Robert Bradshaw]

Thanks. It sounds like this is enough of  a blocker for me to vote -1 for
RC1 as well. We'll keep an eye out for RC2.

(If this is the only change, the Python artifacts are still good. I
would encourage folks to keep testing RC1 to see if there are any other
issues, so we can have quick resolution on RC2.)

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:53 PM Rui Wang  wrote:

> Ok, I will abort RC1 and go toward RC2 for known issues. Thanks everyone
> who has helped!
>
>
>
> -Rui
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:28 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>
>> -1, as that PR does fix a critical bug. The fact that no unit test broke
>> before was more a signal that our unit testing was deficient in this area.
>>
>> My fix for the bug is pr/11226, which did include a unit test (which
>> fails without the fix). However it appears that 11252 forked off just the
>> main code files from my pr, and not the unit test. If we're recutting, we
>> should include the unit test as well.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>
>>> I see. I will also leave the community to decide.
>>>
>>> With the unit tests in [1], the fix becomes sufficient (e.g. if the
>>> community decides that the fix is critical, I will also need to include
>>> those tests in the release).
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11226
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rui
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:05 PM Steve Niemitz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 My opinion doesn't matter much, since we're just going to cherry pick
 the fix into our fork anyways, but you're essentially proposing releasing a
 build that *WILL* cause data loss to anyone who uses processing time
 timers.

 I'll leave it up to the community to decide, but it seems like a pretty
 big bug.

 Also, fwiw, there is a PR open that adds a test for this [1], but it
 was never merged (it's been open for 12 days).

 [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11226

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:52 PM Rui Wang  wrote:

> My opinion is, even though that commit was missing, no test/validation
> gave a signal that something relevant was broken. Plus that fix didn't
> include a test.
>
> I will hesitate to say such a fix is critical for a release, unless
> there is something to test or validate it.
>
>
> -Rui
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:46 PM Steve Niemitz 
> wrote:
>
>> timers are essentially broken without it, so I'd say -1
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:45 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>
>>> ok so the source is consistent with the binary. What undecided is if
>>> missing that commit is -1, or that can be marked as a known issue in
>>> release note.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rui
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Niemitz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I can confirm that the artifact on maven central [1] does not have
 the change in it either, I disassembled it with javap.

 [1]
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/org/apache/beam/beam-runners-core-java/2.20.0/beam-runners-core-java-2.20.0.jar

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:28 PM Luke Cwik  wrote:

> If the source doesn't represent the binaries, should that be an
> automatic -1?
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <
> valen...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw <
>> rober...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers
>>> as well?
>>>
>>
>> No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies
>> are also installed.
>>
>> Context (for others reading this): Currently built
>> Dataflow Python containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 
>> dependencies,
>> which will be fixed.
>>
>>
>>> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good,
>>> except that we're missing
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we were hoping to
>>> get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.



 -Rui

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas <
 peter.far...@aliz.ai> wrote:

> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
> 
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for
>> preparing the RC.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía <
>> ieme...@gmail.com> wr

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Rui Wang]

Ok, I will abort RC1 and go toward RC2 for known issues. Thanks everyone
who has helped!



-Rui

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:28 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:

> -1, as that PR does fix a critical bug. The fact that no unit test broke
> before was more a signal that our unit testing was deficient in this area.
>
> My fix for the bug is pr/11226, which did include a unit test (which fails
> without the fix). However it appears that 11252 forked off just the main
> code files from my pr, and not the unit test. If we're recutting, we should
> include the unit test as well.
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>
>> I see. I will also leave the community to decide.
>>
>> With the unit tests in [1], the fix becomes sufficient (e.g. if the
>> community decides that the fix is critical, I will also need to include
>> those tests in the release).
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11226
>>
>>
>> -Rui
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:05 PM Steve Niemitz  wrote:
>>
>>> My opinion doesn't matter much, since we're just going to cherry pick
>>> the fix into our fork anyways, but you're essentially proposing releasing a
>>> build that *WILL* cause data loss to anyone who uses processing time
>>> timers.
>>>
>>> I'll leave it up to the community to decide, but it seems like a pretty
>>> big bug.
>>>
>>> Also, fwiw, there is a PR open that adds a test for this [1], but it was
>>> never merged (it's been open for 12 days).
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11226
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:52 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>>
 My opinion is, even though that commit was missing, no test/validation
 gave a signal that something relevant was broken. Plus that fix didn't
 include a test.

 I will hesitate to say such a fix is critical for a release, unless
 there is something to test or validate it.


 -Rui

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:46 PM Steve Niemitz 
 wrote:

> timers are essentially broken without it, so I'd say -1
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:45 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>
>> ok so the source is consistent with the binary. What undecided is if
>> missing that commit is -1, or that can be marked as a known issue in
>> release note.
>>
>>
>> -Rui
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Niemitz 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I can confirm that the artifact on maven central [1] does not have
>>> the change in it either, I disassembled it with javap.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/org/apache/beam/beam-runners-core-java/2.20.0/beam-runners-core-java-2.20.0.jar
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:28 PM Luke Cwik  wrote:
>>>
 If the source doesn't represent the binaries, should that be an
 automatic -1?

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <
 valen...@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw <
> rober...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers
>> as well?
>>
>
> No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies are
> also installed.
>
> Context (for others reading this): Currently built Dataflow Python
> containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 dependencies, which will 
> be
> fixed.
>
>
>> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except
>> that we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if
>> we were hoping to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rui
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas <
>>> peter.far...@aliz.ai> wrote:
>>>
 +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
 

 On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay 
 wrote:

> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for
> preparing the RC.
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía <
> ieme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>>
>> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the
>> future. Maybe we can
>> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the
>> place to
>> discuss this).
>>
>
> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Reuven Lax]

-1, as that PR does fix a critical bug. The fact that no unit test broke
before was more a signal that our unit testing was deficient in this area.

My fix for the bug is pr/11226, which did include a unit test (which fails
without the fix). However it appears that 11252 forked off just the main
code files from my pr, and not the unit test. If we're recutting, we should
include the unit test as well.

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Rui Wang  wrote:

> I see. I will also leave the community to decide.
>
> With the unit tests in [1], the fix becomes sufficient (e.g. if the
> community decides that the fix is critical, I will also need to include
> those tests in the release).
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11226
>
>
> -Rui
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:05 PM Steve Niemitz  wrote:
>
>> My opinion doesn't matter much, since we're just going to cherry pick the
>> fix into our fork anyways, but you're essentially proposing releasing a
>> build that *WILL* cause data loss to anyone who uses processing time
>> timers.
>>
>> I'll leave it up to the community to decide, but it seems like a pretty
>> big bug.
>>
>> Also, fwiw, there is a PR open that adds a test for this [1], but it was
>> never merged (it's been open for 12 days).
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11226
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:52 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>
>>> My opinion is, even though that commit was missing, no test/validation
>>> gave a signal that something relevant was broken. Plus that fix didn't
>>> include a test.
>>>
>>> I will hesitate to say such a fix is critical for a release, unless
>>> there is something to test or validate it.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rui
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:46 PM Steve Niemitz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 timers are essentially broken without it, so I'd say -1

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:45 PM Rui Wang  wrote:

> ok so the source is consistent with the binary. What undecided is if
> missing that commit is -1, or that can be marked as a known issue in
> release note.
>
>
> -Rui
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Niemitz 
> wrote:
>
>> I can confirm that the artifact on maven central [1] does not have
>> the change in it either, I disassembled it with javap.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/org/apache/beam/beam-runners-core-java/2.20.0/beam-runners-core-java-2.20.0.jar
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:28 PM Luke Cwik  wrote:
>>
>>> If the source doesn't represent the binaries, should that be an
>>> automatic -1?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <
>>> valen...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw 
 wrote:

> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers
> as well?
>

 No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies are
 also installed.

 Context (for others reading this): Currently built Dataflow Python
 containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 dependencies, which will be
 fixed.


> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except
> that we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if
> we were hoping to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang 
> wrote:
>
>> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Rui
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
>>> 
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for
 preparing the RC.

 On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía 
 wrote:

> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>
> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the
> future. Maybe we can
> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the
> place to
> discuss this).
>

 I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already
 discussed this (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388)
 but we did not get a chance to work on it.


>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang 
> wrote:
> >
> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
> artifacts:

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Rui Wang]

I see. I will also leave the community to decide.

With the unit tests in [1], the fix becomes sufficient (e.g. if the
community decides that the fix is critical, I will also need to include
those tests in the release).


[1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11226


-Rui


On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:05 PM Steve Niemitz  wrote:

> My opinion doesn't matter much, since we're just going to cherry pick the
> fix into our fork anyways, but you're essentially proposing releasing a
> build that *WILL* cause data loss to anyone who uses processing time
> timers.
>
> I'll leave it up to the community to decide, but it seems like a pretty
> big bug.
>
> Also, fwiw, there is a PR open that adds a test for this [1], but it was
> never merged (it's been open for 12 days).
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11226
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:52 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>
>> My opinion is, even though that commit was missing, no test/validation
>> gave a signal that something relevant was broken. Plus that fix didn't
>> include a test.
>>
>> I will hesitate to say such a fix is critical for a release, unless there
>> is something to test or validate it.
>>
>>
>> -Rui
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:46 PM Steve Niemitz  wrote:
>>
>>> timers are essentially broken without it, so I'd say -1
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:45 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>>
 ok so the source is consistent with the binary. What undecided is if
 missing that commit is -1, or that can be marked as a known issue in
 release note.


 -Rui

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Niemitz 
 wrote:

> I can confirm that the artifact on maven central [1] does not have the
> change in it either, I disassembled it with javap.
>
> [1]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/org/apache/beam/beam-runners-core-java/2.20.0/beam-runners-core-java-2.20.0.jar
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:28 PM Luke Cwik  wrote:
>
>> If the source doesn't represent the binaries, should that be an
>> automatic -1?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <
>> valen...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as
 well?

>>>
>>> No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies are
>>> also installed.
>>>
>>> Context (for others reading this): Currently built Dataflow Python
>>> containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 dependencies, which will be
>>> fixed.
>>>
>>>
 I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except
 that we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we
 were hoping to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:

> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>
>
>
> -Rui
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
>> 
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for
>>> preparing the RC.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452

 We really need to put some windows tests in place in the
 future. Maybe we can
 try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place
 to
 discuss this).

>>>
>>> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already
>>> discussed this (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388)
>>> but we did not get a chance to work on it.
>>>
>>>

 On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang 
 wrote:
 >
 > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
 artifacts:
 > maven: 3.6.2
 > java: 1.8.0_181
 >
 >
 > -Rui
 >
 > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> Hi everyone,
 >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
 version 1.20.0, 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,

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Steve Niemitz]

My opinion doesn't matter much, since we're just going to cherry pick the
fix into our fork anyways, but you're essentially proposing releasing a
build that *WILL* cause data loss to anyone who uses processing time timers.

I'll leave it up to the community to decide, but it seems like a pretty big
bug.

Also, fwiw, there is a PR open that adds a test for this [1], but it was
never merged (it's been open for 12 days).

[1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11226

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:52 PM Rui Wang  wrote:

> My opinion is, even though that commit was missing, no test/validation
> gave a signal that something relevant was broken. Plus that fix didn't
> include a test.
>
> I will hesitate to say such a fix is critical for a release, unless there
> is something to test or validate it.
>
>
> -Rui
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:46 PM Steve Niemitz  wrote:
>
>> timers are essentially broken without it, so I'd say -1
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:45 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>
>>> ok so the source is consistent with the binary. What undecided is if
>>> missing that commit is -1, or that can be marked as a known issue in
>>> release note.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rui
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Niemitz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I can confirm that the artifact on maven central [1] does not have the
 change in it either, I disassembled it with javap.

 [1]
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/org/apache/beam/beam-runners-core-java/2.20.0/beam-runners-core-java-2.20.0.jar

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:28 PM Luke Cwik  wrote:

> If the source doesn't represent the binaries, should that be an
> automatic -1?
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <
> valen...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as
>>> well?
>>>
>>
>> No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies are
>> also installed.
>>
>> Context (for others reading this): Currently built Dataflow Python
>> containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 dependencies, which will be
>> fixed.
>>
>>
>>> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except
>>> that we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we
>>> were hoping to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>>
 A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.



 -Rui

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas 
 wrote:

> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
> 
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>
>> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for
>> preparing the RC.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>>>
>>> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future.
>>> Maybe we can
>>> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place
>>> to
>>> discuss this).
>>>
>>
>> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed
>> this (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we
>> did not get a chance to work on it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
>>> artifacts:
>>> > maven: 3.6.2
>>> > java: 1.8.0_181
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -Rui
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi everyone,
>>> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>> version 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with
>>> fingerprint 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
>>> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>>> Repository [4],
>>> >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-RC1" [5],
>>> >> * website pull request listing the release [6], pub

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Rui Wang]

My opinion is, even though that commit was missing, no test/validation gave
a signal that something relevant was broken. Plus that fix didn't include a
test.

I will hesitate to say such a fix is critical for a release, unless there
is something to test or validate it.


-Rui

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:46 PM Steve Niemitz  wrote:

> timers are essentially broken without it, so I'd say -1
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:45 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>
>> ok so the source is consistent with the binary. What undecided is if
>> missing that commit is -1, or that can be marked as a known issue in
>> release note.
>>
>>
>> -Rui
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Niemitz  wrote:
>>
>>> I can confirm that the artifact on maven central [1] does not have the
>>> change in it either, I disassembled it with javap.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/org/apache/beam/beam-runners-core-java/2.20.0/beam-runners-core-java-2.20.0.jar
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:28 PM Luke Cwik  wrote:
>>>
 If the source doesn't represent the binaries, should that be an
 automatic -1?

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev 
 wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw 
> wrote:
>
>> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as
>> well?
>>
>
> No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies are
> also installed.
>
> Context (for others reading this): Currently built Dataflow Python
> containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 dependencies, which will be
> fixed.
>
>
>> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except
>> that we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we
>> were hoping to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>
>>> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rui
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
 

 On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:

> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing
> the RC.
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía 
> wrote:
>
>> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>>
>> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future.
>> Maybe we can
>> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
>> discuss this).
>>
>
> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed
> this (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did
> not get a chance to work on it.
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
>> artifacts:
>> > maven: 3.6.2
>> > java: 1.8.0_181
>> >
>> >
>> > -Rui
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>> version 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with
>> fingerprint 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
>> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>> [4],
>> >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
>> >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
>> artifacts?
>> >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release
>> to the dist.apache.org [2].
>> >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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 l

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Steve Niemitz]

timers are essentially broken without it, so I'd say -1

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:45 PM Rui Wang  wrote:

> ok so the source is consistent with the binary. What undecided is if
> missing that commit is -1, or that can be marked as a known issue in
> release note.
>
>
> -Rui
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Niemitz  wrote:
>
>> I can confirm that the artifact on maven central [1] does not have the
>> change in it either, I disassembled it with javap.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/org/apache/beam/beam-runners-core-java/2.20.0/beam-runners-core-java-2.20.0.jar
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:28 PM Luke Cwik  wrote:
>>
>>> If the source doesn't represent the binaries, should that be an
>>> automatic -1?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw 
 wrote:

> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as
> well?
>

 No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies are also
 installed.

 Context (for others reading this): Currently built Dataflow Python
 containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 dependencies, which will be
 fixed.


> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except that
> we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we were
> hoping to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>
>> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Rui
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
>>> 
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>>>
 +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing
 the RC.

 On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía 
 wrote:

> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>
> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future.
> Maybe we can
> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
> discuss this).
>

 I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed
 this (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did
 not get a chance to work on it.


>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
> >
> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
> artifacts:
> > maven: 3.6.2
> > java: 1.8.0_181
> >
> >
> > -Rui
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
> version 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with
> fingerprint 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
> [4],
> >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
> >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
> artifacts?
> >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release
> to the dist.apache.org [2].
> >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12346780
> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.20.0/
> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> >> [4]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/
> >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Rui Wang]

ok so the source is consistent with the binary. What undecided is if
missing that commit is -1, or that can be marked as a known issue in
release note.


-Rui

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Niemitz  wrote:

> I can confirm that the artifact on maven central [1] does not have the
> change in it either, I disassembled it with javap.
>
> [1]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/org/apache/beam/beam-runners-core-java/2.20.0/beam-runners-core-java-2.20.0.jar
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:28 PM Luke Cwik  wrote:
>
>> If the source doesn't represent the binaries, should that be an automatic
>> -1?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as
 well?

>>>
>>> No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies are also
>>> installed.
>>>
>>> Context (for others reading this): Currently built Dataflow Python
>>> containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 dependencies, which will be
>>> fixed.
>>>
>>>
 I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except that
 we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we were
 hoping to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:

> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>
>
>
> -Rui
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
>> 
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing
>>> the RC.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452

 We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future.
 Maybe we can
 try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
 discuss this).

>>>
>>> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed
>>> this (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did
>>> not get a chance to work on it.
>>>
>>>

 On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
 >
 > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
 artifacts:
 > maven: 3.6.2
 > java: 1.8.0_181
 >
 >
 > -Rui
 >
 > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> Hi everyone,
 >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
 version 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
 >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
 [4],
 >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
 >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
 artifacts?
 >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to
 the dist.apache.org [2].
 >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12346780
 >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.20.0/
 >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
 >> [4]
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/
 >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.20.0-RC1
 >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11285
 >> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/602
 >> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11298
 >> [9

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Steve Niemitz]

I can confirm that the artifact on maven central [1] does not have the
change in it either, I disassembled it with javap.

[1]
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/org/apache/beam/beam-runners-core-java/2.20.0/beam-runners-core-java-2.20.0.jar

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:28 PM Luke Cwik  wrote:

> If the source doesn't represent the binaries, should that be an automatic
> -1?
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as
>>> well?
>>>
>>
>> No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies are also
>> installed.
>>
>> Context (for others reading this): Currently built Dataflow Python
>> containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 dependencies, which will be
>> fixed.
>>
>>
>>> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except that
>>> we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we were
>>> hoping to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>>
 A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.



 -Rui

 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas 
 wrote:

> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
> 
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>
>> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing
>> the RC.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>>>
>>> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future.
>>> Maybe we can
>>> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
>>> discuss this).
>>>
>>
>> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed
>> this (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did
>> not get a chance to work on it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
>>> artifacts:
>>> > maven: 3.6.2
>>> > java: 1.8.0_181
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -Rui
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi everyone,
>>> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>> version 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>>> 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
>>> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>>> [4],
>>> >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
>>> >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
>>> artifacts?
>>> >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to
>>> the dist.apache.org [2].
>>> >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12346780
>>> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.20.0/
>>> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> >> [4]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/
>>> >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.20.0-RC1
>>> >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11285
>>> >> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/602
>>> >> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11298
>>> >> [9]
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=318600984
>>> >> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Peter Farkas
>
> Lead Data Architect
>
>
> www.aliz.ai
>
> LinkedIn 

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Luke Cwik]

If the source doesn't represent the binaries, should that be an automatic
-1?

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev 
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw 
> wrote:
>
>> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as well?
>>
>
> No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies are also
> installed.
>
> Context (for others reading this): Currently built Dataflow Python
> containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 dependencies, which will be
> fixed.
>
>
>> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except that
>> we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we were
>> hoping to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>
>>> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rui
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
 

 On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:

> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing the
> RC.
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía 
> wrote:
>
>> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>>
>> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future.
>> Maybe we can
>> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
>> discuss this).
>>
>
> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed this
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did not get
> a chance to work on it.
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>> >
>> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
>> artifacts:
>> > maven: 3.6.2
>> > java: 1.8.0_181
>> >
>> >
>> > -Rui
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>> 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>> 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
>> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
>> >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
>> artifacts?
>> >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to
>> the dist.apache.org [2].
>> >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12346780
>> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.20.0/
>> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>> >> [4]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/
>> >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.20.0-RC1
>> >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11285
>> >> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/602
>> >> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11298
>> >> [9]
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=318600984
>> >> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>
>

 --

 Peter Farkas

 Lead Data Architect


 www.aliz.ai

 LinkedIn | Facebook
 | Blog
 

 

>>>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Valentyn Tymofieiev]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw  wrote:

> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as well?
>

No, external containers install Beam, so all Beam dependencies are also
installed.

Context (for others reading this): Currently built Dataflow Python
containers don't install one of Beam 2.20.0 dependencies, which will be
fixed.


> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except that
> we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we were hoping
> to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>
>> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Rui
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
>>> 
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>>>
 +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing the
 RC.

 On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía  wrote:

> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>
> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future. Maybe
> we can
> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
> discuss this).
>

 I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed this (
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did not get a
 chance to work on it.


>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
> >
> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
> artifacts:
> > maven: 3.6.2
> > java: 1.8.0_181
> >
> >
> > -Rui
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
> 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
> 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
> >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
> artifacts?
> >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to
> the dist.apache.org [2].
> >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12346780
> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.20.0/
> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> >> [4]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/
> >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.20.0-RC1
> >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11285
> >> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/602
> >> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11298
> >> [9]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=318600984
> >> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>

>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Peter Farkas
>>>
>>> Lead Data Architect
>>>
>>>
>>> www.aliz.ai
>>>
>>> LinkedIn | Facebook
>>> | Blog
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Robert Bradshaw]

Yes, it's in the release branch. My point is that this change is not in the
source release zipfile

unzip -pv staging/apache-beam-2.20.0-source-release.zip
 
beam-release-2.20.0/runners/core-java/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/runners/core/SimpleDoFnRunner.java
| cat -n | head -n 1200

and given that likely not in the binary artifacts either.


On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:22 PM Rui Wang  wrote:

> I think PR#11252 is in the release branch? See
> https://github.com/apache/beam/commits/release-2.20.0 (the top commit)
>
>
>
> -Rui
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw 
> wrote:
>
>> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as well?
>>
>> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except that
>> we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we were
>> hoping to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>
>>> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rui
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
 

 On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:

> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing the
> RC.
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía 
> wrote:
>
>> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>>
>> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future.
>> Maybe we can
>> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
>> discuss this).
>>
>
> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed this
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did not get
> a chance to work on it.
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>> >
>> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
>> artifacts:
>> > maven: 3.6.2
>> > java: 1.8.0_181
>> >
>> >
>> > -Rui
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>> 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>> 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
>> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
>> >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
>> artifacts?
>> >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to
>> the dist.apache.org [2].
>> >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12346780
>> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.20.0/
>> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>> >> [4]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/
>> >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.20.0-RC1
>> >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11285
>> >> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/602
>> >> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11298
>> >> [9]
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=318600984
>> >> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>
>

 --

 Peter Farkas

 Lead Data Architect


 www.aliz.ai

 LinkedIn | Facebook
 | Blog
 

 

>>>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Rui Wang]

I think PR#11252 is in the release branch? See
https://github.com/apache/beam/commits/release-2.20.0 (the top commit)



-Rui

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robert Bradshaw  wrote:

> Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as well?
>
> I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except that
> we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we were hoping
> to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>
>> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Rui
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
>>> 
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>>>
 +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing the
 RC.

 On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía  wrote:

> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>
> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future. Maybe
> we can
> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
> discuss this).
>

 I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed this (
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did not get a
 chance to work on it.


>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
> >
> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
> artifacts:
> > maven: 3.6.2
> > java: 1.8.0_181
> >
> >
> > -Rui
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
> 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
> 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
> >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
> artifacts?
> >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to
> the dist.apache.org [2].
> >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12346780
> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.20.0/
> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> >> [4]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/
> >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.20.0-RC1
> >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11285
> >> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/602
> >> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11298
> >> [9]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=318600984
> >> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>

>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Peter Farkas
>>>
>>> Lead Data Architect
>>>
>>>
>>> www.aliz.ai
>>>
>>> LinkedIn | Facebook
>>> | Blog
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Robert Bradshaw]

Valentyn, do the container issues affect our external containers as well?

I verified the signatures and sources, they all look good, except that
we're missing https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11252 if we were hoping
to get that in. The wheel looks fine as well.

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:

> A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.
>
>
>
> -Rui
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas  wrote:
>
>> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
>> 
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing the
>>> RC.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía  wrote:
>>>
 Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452

 We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future. Maybe
 we can
 try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
 discuss this).

>>>
>>> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed this (
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did not get a
>>> chance to work on it.
>>>
>>>

 On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
 >
 > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java
 artifacts:
 > maven: 3.6.2
 > java: 1.8.0_181
 >
 >
 > -Rui
 >
 > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
 >>
 >> Hi everyone,
 >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
 >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
 >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
 >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
 artifacts?
 >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
 dist.apache.org [2].
 >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12346780
 >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.20.0/
 >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
 >> [4]
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/
 >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.20.0-RC1
 >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11285
 >> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/602
 >> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11298
 >> [9]
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=318600984
 >> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image

>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Peter Farkas
>>
>> Lead Data Architect
>>
>>
>> www.aliz.ai
>>
>> LinkedIn | Facebook
>> | Blog
>> 
>>
>> 
>>
>

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Accept the Firefly design donation as Beam Mascot - Deadline Mon April 6

[Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy]

I am happy to announce that this vote has passed, with 13 approving +1
votes, 5 of which are binding PMC votes.

We have the final design for the Beam Firefly! Yahoo!

Everyone have a great week!



On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 9:57 AM David Morávek  wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:51 PM Reza Rokni  wrote:
>
>> +1(non-binding)
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Alexey Romanenko 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding).
>>>
>>> > On 3 Apr 2020, at 14:53, Maximilian Michels  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1 (binding)
>>> >
>>> > On 03.04.20 10:33, Jan Lukavský wrote:
>>> >> +1 (non-binding).
>>> >>
>>> >> On 4/2/20 9:24 PM, Austin Bennett wrote:
>>> >>> +1 (nonbinding)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:10 PM Luke Cwik >> >>> > wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>+1 (binding)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM Pablo Estrada >> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>+1! (binding)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:19 AM Alex Van Boxel
>>> >>>mailto:a...@vanboxel.be>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Thanks for clearing this up Aizhamal.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>+1 (non binding)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>_/
>>> >>>_/ Alex Van Boxel
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:14 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy
>>> >>>mailto:aizha...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Good point, Alex. Actually Julian and I have talked
>>> >>>about producing this kind of guide. It will be
>>> >>>delivered as an additional contribution in the follow
>>> >>>up. We think this will be a derivative of the original
>>> >>>design, and be done after the original is officially
>>> >>>accepted.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>With this vote, we want to accept the Firefly donation
>>> >>>as designed [1], and let Julian produce other
>>> >>>artifacts using the official Beam mascot later on.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>[1]
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zK8Cm8lwZ3ALVFpD1aY7TLCVNwlyTS3PXxTV2qQCAbk/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:37 AM Alex Van Boxel
>>> >>>mailto:a...@vanboxel.be>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>I don't want to be a spoiler... but this vote
>>> >>>feels like a final deliverable... but without a
>>> >>>style guide as Kenn originally suggested most of
>>> >>>use will not be able to adapt the design. This
>>> >>>would include:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>  * frontal view
>>> >>>  * side view
>>> >>>  * back view
>>> >>>
>>> >>>actually different posses so we can mix and match.
>>> >>>Without this it will never reach the potential of
>>> >>>the Go gopher or gRPC Pancakes.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Note this is *not* a negative vote but I'm afraid
>>> >>>that the use without a guide will be fairly
>>> >>>limited as most of use are not designers. Just a
>>> >>>concern.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _/
>>> >>>_/ Alex Van Boxel
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:27 PM Andrew Pilloud
>>> >>>mailto:apill...@apache.org
>>> >>
>>> >>>wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>+1, Accept the donation of the Firefly design
>>> >>>as Beam Mascot
>>> >>>
>>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:19 AM Julian Bruno
>>> >>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Hello Apache Beam Community,
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Please vote on the acceptance of the final
>>> >>>design of the Firefly as Beam's mascot
>>> >>>[1]. Please share your input no later than
>>> >>>Monday, April 6, at noon Pacific Time.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>[ ] +1, Accept the donation of the Firefly
>>> >>>design as Beam Mascot
>>> >>>
>>> >>>[ ] -1, Decline the donation of the
>>> >>>Firefly design as Beam Mascot
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Vote is adopted by at least 3 PMC +1
>>> >>>approval votes, with no PMC -1 disapproval
>>> >>>
>>> >>>votes. Non-PMC votes are still encouraged.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>PMC voters, please help by indicating your
>>> >>>vote as "(binding)"
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>   

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Rui Wang]

A friendly ping to remind the vote for RC1 is pending.



-Rui

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:21 AM Péter Farkas  wrote:

> +1 - Validated only BEAM-9452
> 
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>
>> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing the
>> RC.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía  wrote:
>>
>>> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>>>
>>> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future. Maybe
>>> we can
>>> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
>>> discuss this).
>>>
>>
>> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed this (
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did not get a
>> chance to work on it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java artifacts:
>>> > maven: 3.6.2
>>> > java: 1.8.0_181
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -Rui
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi everyone,
>>> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>> 1.20.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint 699A
>>> 22D2 D4F0 0AD3 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
>>> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
>>> >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
>>> artifacts?
>>> >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>>> dist.apache.org [2].
>>> >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12346780
>>> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.20.0/
>>> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> >> [4]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/
>>> >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.20.0-RC1
>>> >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11285
>>> >> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/602
>>> >> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11298
>>> >> [9]
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=318600984
>>> >> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Peter Farkas
>
> Lead Data Architect
>
>
> www.aliz.ai
>
> LinkedIn | Facebook
> | Blog
> 
>
> 
>

Re: [VOTE] Accept the Firefly design donation as Beam Mascot - Deadline Mon April 6

[David Morávek]

+1 (non-binding)

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:51 PM Reza Rokni  wrote:

> +1(non-binding)
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Alexey Romanenko 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding).
>>
>> > On 3 Apr 2020, at 14:53, Maximilian Michels  wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 (binding)
>> >
>> > On 03.04.20 10:33, Jan Lukavský wrote:
>> >> +1 (non-binding).
>> >>
>> >> On 4/2/20 9:24 PM, Austin Bennett wrote:
>> >>> +1 (nonbinding)
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:10 PM Luke Cwik > >>> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>+1 (binding)
>> >>>
>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM Pablo Estrada > >>>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>+1! (binding)
>> >>>
>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:19 AM Alex Van Boxel
>> >>>mailto:a...@vanboxel.be>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Thanks for clearing this up Aizhamal.
>> >>>
>> >>>+1 (non binding)
>> >>>
>> >>>_/
>> >>>_/ Alex Van Boxel
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:14 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy
>> >>>mailto:aizha...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Good point, Alex. Actually Julian and I have talked
>> >>>about producing this kind of guide. It will be
>> >>>delivered as an additional contribution in the follow
>> >>>up. We think this will be a derivative of the original
>> >>>design, and be done after the original is officially
>> >>>accepted.
>> >>>
>> >>>With this vote, we want to accept the Firefly donation
>> >>>as designed [1], and let Julian produce other
>> >>>artifacts using the official Beam mascot later on.
>> >>>
>> >>>[1]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zK8Cm8lwZ3ALVFpD1aY7TLCVNwlyTS3PXxTV2qQCAbk/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:37 AM Alex Van Boxel
>> >>>mailto:a...@vanboxel.be>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>I don't want to be a spoiler... but this vote
>> >>>feels like a final deliverable... but without a
>> >>>style guide as Kenn originally suggested most of
>> >>>use will not be able to adapt the design. This
>> >>>would include:
>> >>>
>> >>>  * frontal view
>> >>>  * side view
>> >>>  * back view
>> >>>
>> >>>actually different posses so we can mix and match.
>> >>>Without this it will never reach the potential of
>> >>>the Go gopher or gRPC Pancakes.
>> >>>
>> >>>Note this is *not* a negative vote but I'm afraid
>> >>>that the use without a guide will be fairly
>> >>>limited as most of use are not designers. Just a
>> >>>concern.
>> >>>
>> >>> _/
>> >>>_/ Alex Van Boxel
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:27 PM Andrew Pilloud
>> >>>mailto:apill...@apache.org>>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>+1, Accept the donation of the Firefly design
>> >>>as Beam Mascot
>> >>>
>> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:19 AM Julian Bruno
>> >>>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Hello Apache Beam Community,
>> >>>
>> >>>Please vote on the acceptance of the final
>> >>>design of the Firefly as Beam's mascot
>> >>>[1]. Please share your input no later than
>> >>>Monday, April 6, at noon Pacific Time.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>[ ] +1, Accept the donation of the Firefly
>> >>>design as Beam Mascot
>> >>>
>> >>>[ ] -1, Decline the donation of the
>> >>>Firefly design as Beam Mascot
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Vote is adopted by at least 3 PMC +1
>> >>>approval votes, with no PMC -1 disapproval
>> >>>
>> >>>votes. Non-PMC votes are still encouraged.
>> >>>
>> >>>PMC voters, please help by indicating your
>> >>>vote as "(binding)"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>The vote and input phase will be open
>> >>>until Monday, April 6, at 12 pm Pacific
>> Time.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Thank you very much for your feedback and
>> >>>ideas,
>> >>>
>> >>>Julian
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>[1]
>> >>>
>> https://docs.google

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

[Péter Farkas]

+1 - Validated only BEAM-9452


On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 00:22, Ahmet Altay  wrote:

> +1 - Validated python quickstart examples. Thank you for preparing the RC.
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:25 PM Ismaël Mejía  wrote:
>
>> Can somebody with windows please validate this one:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9452
>>
>> We really need to put some windows tests in place in the future. Maybe we
>> can
>> try github actions for this (but well the vote is not the place to
>> discuss this).
>>
>
> I completely agree with you. I think we kind of already discussed this (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388) but we did not get a
> chance to work on it.
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>> >
>> > Add Maven and Java versions that were used for building java artifacts:
>> > maven: 3.6.2
>> > java: 1.8.0_181
>> >
>> >
>> > -Rui
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:06 PM Rui Wang  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>> 1.20.0, 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
>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint 699A 22D2 D4F0 0AD3
>> 957B  6A88 38B1 C6B4 25EB A67C [3],
>> >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> >> * source code tag "v1.20.0-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.
>> >> TODO: do these versions matter, and are they stamped into the
>> artifacts?
>> >> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>> dist.apache.org [2].
>> >> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.20.0 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://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12346780
>> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.20.0/
>> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>> >> [4]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1100/
>> >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.20.0-RC1
>> >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11285
>> >> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/602
>> >> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11298
>> >> [9]
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=318600984
>> >> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image
>>
>

-- 

Peter Farkas

Lead Data Architect


www.aliz.ai

LinkedIn | Facebook
| Blog

Beam Dependency Check Report (2020-04-06)

[Apache Jenkins Server]

High Priority Dependency Updates Of Beam Python SDK:


  Dependency Name
  Current Version
  Latest Version
  Release Date Of the Current Used Version
  Release Date Of The Latest Release
  JIRA Issue
  
google-cloud-datastore
1.7.4
1.11.0
2019-05-27
2020-03-24BEAM-8443
google-cloud-pubsub
1.0.2
1.4.2
2019-12-23
2020-03-30BEAM-5539
google-cloud-vision
0.42.0
1.0.0
2020-03-24
2020-03-24BEAM-9581
grpcio-tools
1.14.2
1.28.1
2020-03-24
2020-04-06BEAM-9582
httplib2
0.12.0
0.17.1
2018-12-10
2020-04-06BEAM-9018
mock
2.0.0
3.0.5
2019-05-20
2019-05-20BEAM-7369
oauth2client
3.0.0
4.1.3
2018-12-10
2018-12-10BEAM-6089
prompt-toolkit
1.0.18
2.0.10
2020-03-24
2020-03-24BEAM-9583
tenacity
5.1.5
6.1.0
2019-11-11
2020-03-24BEAM-8607
tox
3.11.1
3.14.6
2020-03-24
2020-03-30BEAM-9584
High Priority Dependency Updates Of Beam Java SDK:


  Dependency Name
  Current Version
  Latest Version
  Release Date Of the Current Used Version
  Release Date Of The Latest Release
  JIRA Issue
  
com.alibaba:fastjson
1.2.49
1.2.68
2018-08-04
2020-03-28BEAM-8632
com.datastax.cassandra:cassandra-driver-core
3.8.0
4.0.0
2019-10-29
2019-03-18BEAM-8674
com.esotericsoftware:kryo
4.0.2
5.0.0-RC5
2018-03-20
2020-03-08BEAM-5809
com.esotericsoftware.kryo:kryo
2.21
2.24.0
2013-02-27
2014-05-04BEAM-5574
com.github.ben-manes.versions:com.github.ben-manes.versions.gradle.plugin
0.20.0
0.28.0
2019-02-11
2020-02-24BEAM-6645
com.github.luben:zstd-jni
1.3.8-3
1.4.4-9
2019-01-29
2020-03-27BEAM-9194
com.github.spotbugs:spotbugs
3.1.12
4.0.1
2019-03-01
2020-03-18BEAM-7792
com.github.spotbugs:spotbugs-annotations
3.1.12
4.0.1
2019-03-01
2020-03-18BEAM-6951
com.google.api.grpc:grpc-google-common-protos
1.12.0
1.17.0
2018-06-29
2019-10-04BEAM-8633
com.google.api.grpc:proto-google-cloud-bigquerystorage-v1beta1
0.85.1
0.93.0
None
2020-04-06BEAM-8678
com.google.api.grpc:proto-google-cloud-spanner-admin-database-v1
1.49.1
1.52.0
2020-01-28
2020-03-20BEAM-8682
com.google.api.grpc:proto-google-common-protos
1.12.0
1.17.0
2018-06-29
2019-10-04BEAM-6899
com.google.apis:google-api-services-bigquery
v2-rev20191211-1.30.3
v2-rev20200324-1.30.9
2020-01-14
2020-03-30BEAM-8684
com.google.apis:google-api-services-clouddebugger
v2-rev20191003-1.30.3
v2-rev20200313-1.30.9
2019-10-19
2020-03-24BEAM-8750
com.google.apis:google-api-services-cloudresourcemanager
v1-rev20191206-1.30.3
v2-rev20200210-1.30.9
2019-12-17
2020-03-05BEAM-8751
com.google.apis:google-api-services-dataflow
v1b3-rev20190927-1.30.3
v1beta3-rev12-1.20.0
2019-10-11
2015-04-29BEAM-8752
com.google.apis:google-api-services-pubsub
v1-rev2019-1.30.3
v1-rev20200312-1.30.9
2019-11-26
2020-03-24BEAM-8753
com.google.apis:google-api-services-storage
v1-rev20191011-1.30.3
v1-rev20200226-1.30.9
2019-10-30
2020-03-16BEAM-8754
com.google.cloud:google-cloud-bigquerystorage
0.125.0-beta
0.128.0-beta
None
2020-04-06BEAM-8755
com.google.cloud:google-cloud-spanner
1.49.1
1.52.0
2020-01-28
2020-03-20BEAM-8758
com.google.guava:guava-testlib
25.1-jre
28.2-jre
2018-05-23
2019-12-27BEAM-8760
com.google.protobuf.nano:protobuf-javanano
3.0.0-alpha-5
3.2.0rc2
2016-01-06
2017-01-19BEAM-9098
com.gradle.build-scan:com.gradle.build-scan.gradle.plugin
2.3
3.2.1
2019-05-20
2020-04-06BEAM-6647
com.ning:compress-lzf
1.0.3
1.0.4
2014-08-16
2017-03-14BEAM-9100
com.pholser:junit-quickcheck-core
0.8
0.9.1
2018-03-08
2020-01-21BEAM-8699
io.netty:netty-handler
4.1.30.Final
5.0.0.Alpha2
2018-09-27
2015-03-03BEAM-8703
javax.servlet:javax.servlet-api
3.1.0
4.0.1

Re: [VOTE] Accept the Firefly design donation as Beam Mascot - Deadline Mon April 6

[Reza Rokni]

+1(non-binding)

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Alexey Romanenko 
wrote:

> +1 (non-binding).
>
> > On 3 Apr 2020, at 14:53, Maximilian Michels  wrote:
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On 03.04.20 10:33, Jan Lukavský wrote:
> >> +1 (non-binding).
> >>
> >> On 4/2/20 9:24 PM, Austin Bennett wrote:
> >>> +1 (nonbinding)
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:10 PM Luke Cwik  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>+1 (binding)
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM Pablo Estrada  >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>+1! (binding)
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:19 AM Alex Van Boxel
> >>>mailto:a...@vanboxel.be>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for clearing this up Aizhamal.
> >>>
> >>>+1 (non binding)
> >>>
> >>>_/
> >>>_/ Alex Van Boxel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:14 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy
> >>>mailto:aizha...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Good point, Alex. Actually Julian and I have talked
> >>>about producing this kind of guide. It will be
> >>>delivered as an additional contribution in the follow
> >>>up. We think this will be a derivative of the original
> >>>design, and be done after the original is officially
> >>>accepted.
> >>>
> >>>With this vote, we want to accept the Firefly donation
> >>>as designed [1], and let Julian produce other
> >>>artifacts using the official Beam mascot later on.
> >>>
> >>>[1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zK8Cm8lwZ3ALVFpD1aY7TLCVNwlyTS3PXxTV2qQCAbk/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:37 AM Alex Van Boxel
> >>>mailto:a...@vanboxel.be>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>I don't want to be a spoiler... but this vote
> >>>feels like a final deliverable... but without a
> >>>style guide as Kenn originally suggested most of
> >>>use will not be able to adapt the design. This
> >>>would include:
> >>>
> >>>  * frontal view
> >>>  * side view
> >>>  * back view
> >>>
> >>>actually different posses so we can mix and match.
> >>>Without this it will never reach the potential of
> >>>the Go gopher or gRPC Pancakes.
> >>>
> >>>Note this is *not* a negative vote but I'm afraid
> >>>that the use without a guide will be fairly
> >>>limited as most of use are not designers. Just a
> >>>concern.
> >>>
> >>> _/
> >>>_/ Alex Van Boxel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:27 PM Andrew Pilloud
> >>>mailto:apill...@apache.org>>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>+1, Accept the donation of the Firefly design
> >>>as Beam Mascot
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:19 AM Julian Bruno
> >>> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Hello Apache Beam Community,
> >>>
> >>>Please vote on the acceptance of the final
> >>>design of the Firefly as Beam's mascot
> >>>[1]. Please share your input no later than
> >>>Monday, April 6, at noon Pacific Time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>[ ] +1, Accept the donation of the Firefly
> >>>design as Beam Mascot
> >>>
> >>>[ ] -1, Decline the donation of the
> >>>Firefly design as Beam Mascot
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Vote is adopted by at least 3 PMC +1
> >>>approval votes, with no PMC -1 disapproval
> >>>
> >>>votes. Non-PMC votes are still encouraged.
> >>>
> >>>PMC voters, please help by indicating your
> >>>vote as "(binding)"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The vote and input phase will be open
> >>>until Monday, April 6, at 12 pm Pacific
> Time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thank you very much for your feedback and
> >>>ideas,
> >>>
> >>>Julian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>[1]
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zK8Cm8lwZ3ALVFpD1aY7TLCVNwlyTS3PXxTV2qQCAbk/edit?usp=sharing
>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Julian Bruno // Visual Artist & Graphic
> >>>

Re: [VOTE] Accept the Firefly design donation as Beam Mascot - Deadline Mon April 6

[Alexey Romanenko]

+1 (non-binding).

> On 3 Apr 2020, at 14:53, Maximilian Michels  wrote:
> 
> +1 (binding)
> 
> On 03.04.20 10:33, Jan Lukavský wrote:
>> +1 (non-binding).
>> 
>> On 4/2/20 9:24 PM, Austin Bennett wrote:
>>> +1 (nonbinding)
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:10 PM Luke Cwik >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>>+1 (binding)
>>> 
>>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM Pablo Estrada >>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>+1! (binding)
>>> 
>>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:19 AM Alex Van Boxel
>>>mailto:a...@vanboxel.be>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>Thanks for clearing this up Aizhamal.
>>> 
>>>+1 (non binding)
>>> 
>>>_/
>>>_/ Alex Van Boxel
>>> 
>>> 
>>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:14 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy
>>>mailto:aizha...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>Good point, Alex. Actually Julian and I have talked
>>>about producing this kind of guide. It will be
>>>delivered as an additional contribution in the follow
>>>up. We think this will be a derivative of the original
>>>design, and be done after the original is officially
>>>accepted. 
>>> 
>>>With this vote, we want to accept the Firefly donation
>>>as designed [1], and let Julian produce other
>>>artifacts using the official Beam mascot later on.
>>> 
>>>[1] 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zK8Cm8lwZ3ALVFpD1aY7TLCVNwlyTS3PXxTV2qQCAbk/edit?usp=sharing
>>> 
>>> 
>>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:37 AM Alex Van Boxel
>>>mailto:a...@vanboxel.be>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>I don't want to be a spoiler... but this vote
>>>feels like a final deliverable... but without a
>>>style guide as Kenn originally suggested most of
>>>use will not be able to adapt the design. This
>>>would include:
>>> 
>>>  * frontal view
>>>  * side view
>>>  * back view
>>> 
>>>actually different posses so we can mix and match.
>>>Without this it will never reach the potential of
>>>the Go gopher or gRPC Pancakes.
>>> 
>>>Note this is *not* a negative vote but I'm afraid
>>>that the use without a guide will be fairly
>>>limited as most of use are not designers. Just a
>>>concern.
>>> 
>>> _/
>>>_/ Alex Van Boxel
>>> 
>>> 
>>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:27 PM Andrew Pilloud
>>>mailto:apill...@apache.org>>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>>+1, Accept the donation of the Firefly design
>>>as Beam Mascot
>>> 
>>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:19 AM Julian Bruno
>>>>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>Hello Apache Beam Community, 
>>> 
>>>Please vote on the acceptance of the final
>>>design of the Firefly as Beam's mascot
>>>[1]. Please share your input no later than
>>>Monday, April 6, at noon Pacific Time. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>[ ] +1, Accept the donation of the Firefly
>>>design as Beam Mascot
>>> 
>>>[ ] -1, Decline the donation of the
>>>Firefly design as Beam Mascot
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Vote is adopted by at least 3 PMC +1
>>>approval votes, with no PMC -1 disapproval
>>> 
>>>votes. Non-PMC votes are still encouraged.
>>> 
>>>PMC voters, please help by indicating your
>>>vote as "(binding)"
>>> 
>>> 
>>>The vote and input phase will be open
>>>until Monday, April 6, at 12 pm Pacific Time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Thank you very much for your feedback and
>>>ideas,
>>> 
>>>Julian
>>> 
>>> 
>>>[1]
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zK8Cm8lwZ3ALVFpD1aY7TLCVNwlyTS3PXxTV2qQCAbk/edit?usp=sharing
>>>   
>>> 
>>>-- 
>>>Julian Bruno // Visual Artist & Graphic
>>>Designer
>>> (510) 367-0551  /
>>>SF Bay Area, CA
>>>www.instagram.com/julbro.art
>>>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Preparing for Beam 2.21 release

[Maximilian Michels]

Sounds good! +1

On 02.04.20 20:11, Luke Cwik wrote:
> Thanks for picking this up.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:09 AM Kyle Weaver  > wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The next (2.21) release branch cut is scheduled for Apr 8, according
> to the calendar
> 
> .
> I would like to volunteer myself to do this release.
> The plan is to cut the branch on that date,
> and cherrypick release-blocking fixes afterwards if any.
> 
> Any unresolved release blocking JIRA issues for 2.21 should have
> their "Fix Version/s" marked as "2.21.0".
> 
> Any comments or objections? 
> 
> Kyle
>