Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kenneth Knowles]

I did an additional round of making sure the human-readable quickstart
instructions also succeed.

Kenn

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 6:47 PM Ahmet Altay  wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> I ran some python quick start examples. Most validations in the sheet were
> already done :) Thank you all!
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 9:15 AM Kyle Weaver  wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-)
>>
>> Ran Python wordcount on Flink and Spark.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:20 PM Brian Hulette 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> I ran a python pipeline exercising the DataFrame API, and another
>>> exercising SQLTransform in Python, both on Dataflow.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:55 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Since the artifacts were changed about 26 hours ago, I intend to leave
 this vote open until 46 hours from now. Specifically, around noon my time
 (US Pacific) on Friday I will close the vote and finalize the release, if
 no problems are discovered.

 Kenn

 On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:52 PM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> I ran the script at
> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#run-validations-using-run_rc_validationsh
> except for the part that requires a GitHub PR, since Cham already did that
> part.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:11 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <
> valen...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> +1, verified that my previous findings are fixed.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:17 AM Chamikara Jayalath <
>> chamik...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> Ran some Python scenarios and updated the spreadsheet.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Cham
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw <
 rober...@google.com> wrote:

> The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding)
>
> (The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't
> push?
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py
> )
>

 Good point. I'll highlight that I finally implemented the branching
 changes from
 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E

 The new guide with diagram is here:
 https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#tag-a-chosen-commit-for-the-rc

 TL;DR:
  - the release branch continues to be dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.29.0 while
 the main branch is now dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.30.0
  - the RC tag v2.29.0-RC1 no longer lies on the release branch. It
 is a single tagged commit that removes the dev/SNAPSHOT suffix

 Kenn


> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>> Please take another look.
>>
>>  - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and
>> wheels are new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip 
>> and
>> wheels have version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
>>  - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from
>> exactly the RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to 
>> get the
>> version to match.
>>  - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0
>> (not -SNAPSHOT).
>>  - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches
>> the RC tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> At this point, the release train has just about come around to
>>> 2.30.0 which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense 
>>> to
>>> cherry-pick anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. 
>>> As it is,
>>> I think we have a good commit and just need to build the expected
>>> artifacts. Since it isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just
>>> overwriting the RC1 artifacts in question and re-verify. I could 
>>> also roll
>>> a new RC2 from the same commit fairly easily.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Any chance we could include
 https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles <
 k...@apache.org> wrote:

> To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the
> `master` branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so 
> this 

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Jarek Potiuk]

+1 (non-binding) 

Thanks for tirelessly working on improving the python client :).

This is a friendly visit from Apache Airflow here. I've just tested the 
2.29.0rc1 in our "apache.beam" provider's tests and they are all Green. Just to 
give a bit of context here. We are eagerly waiting for the 2.29.0rc1 release as 
it will unblock a few things for us - most notably, relaxing PyArrow dependency 
will help us to add Python 3.9 support to Apache Airflow (It's been long 
overdue and pyarrow < 3.0.0 coming from Apache Beam was one of the last 
blockers).

Also FYI. I am happy to be a bit more involved with some (possible) future 
dependency improvements for Beam. We had a bit of struggle with PIP 21 which 
has hard time with some of the dependency conflicts. We've managed to 
workaround it for the moment (https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/15513), 
but looking forward to improve this and make it better (especially moving all 
google python clients to > 2).

On 2021/04/23 01:46:51, Ahmet Altay  wrote: 
> +1 (binding)
> 
> I ran some python quick start examples. Most validations in the sheet were
> already done :) Thank you all!
> 
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 9:15 AM Kyle Weaver  wrote:
> 
> > +1 (non-)
> >
> > Ran Python wordcount on Flink and Spark.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:20 PM Brian Hulette  wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (non-binding)
> >>
> >> I ran a python pipeline exercising the DataFrame API, and another
> >> exercising SQLTransform in Python, both on Dataflow.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:55 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Since the artifacts were changed about 26 hours ago, I intend to leave
> >>> this vote open until 46 hours from now. Specifically, around noon my time
> >>> (US Pacific) on Friday I will close the vote and finalize the release, if
> >>> no problems are discovered.
> >>>
> >>> Kenn
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:52 PM Kenneth Knowles 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  +1 (binding)
> 
>  I ran the script at
>  https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#run-validations-using-run_rc_validationsh
>  except for the part that requires a GitHub PR, since Cham already did 
>  that
>  part.
> 
>  Kenn
> 
>  On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:11 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <
>  valen...@google.com> wrote:
> 
> > +1, verified that my previous findings are fixed.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:17 AM Chamikara Jayalath <
> > chamik...@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (binding)
> >>
> >> Ran some Python scenarios and updated the spreadsheet.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Cham
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding)
> 
>  (The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't push?
>  https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py
>  )
> 
> >>>
> >>> Good point. I'll highlight that I finally implemented the branching
> >>> changes from
> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> >>>
> >>> The new guide with diagram is here:
> >>> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#tag-a-chosen-commit-for-the-rc
> >>>
> >>> TL;DR:
> >>>  - the release branch continues to be dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.29.0 while
> >>> the main branch is now dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.30.0
> >>>  - the RC tag v2.29.0-RC1 no longer lies on the release branch. It
> >>> is a single tagged commit that removes the dev/SNAPSHOT suffix
> >>>
> >>> Kenn
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Please take another look.
> >
> >  - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and
> > wheels are new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source 
> > zip and
> > wheels have version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
> >  - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from
> > exactly the RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to 
> > get the
> > version to match.
> >  - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0
> > (not -SNAPSHOT).
> >  - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches
> > the RC tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)
> >
> > Kenn
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> At this point, the release train has just about come around to
> >> 2.30.0 which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes 
> >> sense to
> 

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Ahmet Altay]

+1 (binding)

I ran some python quick start examples. Most validations in the sheet were
already done :) Thank you all!

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 9:15 AM Kyle Weaver  wrote:

> +1 (non-)
>
> Ran Python wordcount on Flink and Spark.
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:20 PM Brian Hulette  wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> I ran a python pipeline exercising the DataFrame API, and another
>> exercising SQLTransform in Python, both on Dataflow.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:55 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>>> Since the artifacts were changed about 26 hours ago, I intend to leave
>>> this vote open until 46 hours from now. Specifically, around noon my time
>>> (US Pacific) on Friday I will close the vote and finalize the release, if
>>> no problems are discovered.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:52 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 (binding)

 I ran the script at
 https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#run-validations-using-run_rc_validationsh
 except for the part that requires a GitHub PR, since Cham already did that
 part.

 Kenn

 On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:11 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <
 valen...@google.com> wrote:

> +1, verified that my previous findings are fixed.
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:17 AM Chamikara Jayalath <
> chamik...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> Ran some Python scenarios and updated the spreadsheet.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cham
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding)

 (The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't push?
 https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py
 )

>>>
>>> Good point. I'll highlight that I finally implemented the branching
>>> changes from
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> The new guide with diagram is here:
>>> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#tag-a-chosen-commit-for-the-rc
>>>
>>> TL;DR:
>>>  - the release branch continues to be dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.29.0 while
>>> the main branch is now dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.30.0
>>>  - the RC tag v2.29.0-RC1 no longer lies on the release branch. It
>>> is a single tagged commit that removes the dev/SNAPSHOT suffix
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>>
 On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> Please take another look.
>
>  - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and
> wheels are new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip 
> and
> wheels have version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
>  - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from
> exactly the RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to 
> get the
> version to match.
>  - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0
> (not -SNAPSHOT).
>  - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches
> the RC tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>> At this point, the release train has just about come around to
>> 2.30.0 which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense 
>> to
>> cherry-pick anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As 
>> it is,
>> I think we have a good commit and just need to build the expected
>> artifacts. Since it isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just
>> overwriting the RC1 artifacts in question and re-verify. I could 
>> also roll
>> a new RC2 from the same commit fairly easily.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Any chance we could include
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the
 `master` branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this 
 should
 work in most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions 
 configuration,
 which I cherrypicked
 to the release branch.

 Kenn

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles <
 k...@apache.org> wrote:

> OK it 

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kyle Weaver]

+1 (non-)

Ran Python wordcount on Flink and Spark.

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:20 PM Brian Hulette  wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> I ran a python pipeline exercising the DataFrame API, and another
> exercising SQLTransform in Python, both on Dataflow.
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:55 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
>> Since the artifacts were changed about 26 hours ago, I intend to leave
>> this vote open until 46 hours from now. Specifically, around noon my time
>> (US Pacific) on Friday I will close the vote and finalize the release, if
>> no problems are discovered.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:52 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> I ran the script at
>>> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#run-validations-using-run_rc_validationsh
>>> except for the part that requires a GitHub PR, since Cham already did that
>>> part.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:11 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <
>>> valen...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
 +1, verified that my previous findings are fixed.

 On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:17 AM Chamikara Jayalath <
 chamik...@google.com> wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> Ran some Python scenarios and updated the spreadsheet.
>
> Thanks,
> Cham
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> (The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't push?
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py
>>> )
>>>
>>
>> Good point. I'll highlight that I finally implemented the branching
>> changes from
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>>
>> The new guide with diagram is here:
>> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#tag-a-chosen-commit-for-the-rc
>>
>> TL;DR:
>>  - the release branch continues to be dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.29.0 while
>> the main branch is now dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.30.0
>>  - the RC tag v2.29.0-RC1 no longer lies on the release branch. It is
>> a single tagged commit that removes the dev/SNAPSHOT suffix
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Please take another look.

  - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and wheels
 are new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip and 
 wheels
 have version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
  - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from
 exactly the RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to get 
 the
 version to match.
  - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0
 (not -SNAPSHOT).
  - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches
 the RC tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)

 Kenn

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> At this point, the release train has just about come around to
> 2.30.0 which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense to
> cherry-pick anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As 
> it is,
> I think we have a good commit and just need to build the expected
> artifacts. Since it isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just
> overwriting the RC1 artifacts in question and re-verify. I could also 
> roll
> a new RC2 from the same commit fairly easily.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax 
> wrote:
>
>> Any chance we could include
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the
>>> `master` branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this 
>>> should
>>> work in most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions 
>>> configuration,
>>> which I cherrypicked
>>> to the release branch.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question.
 I don't think anything raised here indicates a problem with the 
 tagged
 commit, but with the state of the release scripts at the time I 
 built the
 earlier artifacts.

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM 

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kenneth Knowles]

Since the artifacts were changed about 26 hours ago, I intend to leave this
vote open until 46 hours from now. Specifically, around noon my time (US
Pacific) on Friday I will close the vote and finalize the release, if no
problems are discovered.

Kenn

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:52 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> I ran the script at
> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#run-validations-using-run_rc_validationsh
> except for the part that requires a GitHub PR, since Cham already did that
> part.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:11 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev 
> wrote:
>
>> +1, verified that my previous findings are fixed.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:17 AM Chamikara Jayalath 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> Ran some Python scenarios and updated the spreadsheet.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Cham
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>>


 On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw 
 wrote:

> The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding)
>
> (The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't push?
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py
> )
>

 Good point. I'll highlight that I finally implemented the branching
 changes from
 https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E

 The new guide with diagram is here:
 https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#tag-a-chosen-commit-for-the-rc

 TL;DR:
  - the release branch continues to be dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.29.0 while the
 main branch is now dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.30.0
  - the RC tag v2.29.0-RC1 no longer lies on the release branch. It is a
 single tagged commit that removes the dev/SNAPSHOT suffix

 Kenn


> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>> Please take another look.
>>
>>  - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and wheels
>> are new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip and wheels
>> have version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
>>  - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from exactly
>> the RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to get the 
>> version
>> to match.
>>  - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0 (not
>> -SNAPSHOT).
>>  - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches the
>> RC tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> At this point, the release train has just about come around to
>>> 2.30.0 which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense to
>>> cherry-pick anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As it 
>>> is,
>>> I think we have a good commit and just need to build the expected
>>> artifacts. Since it isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just
>>> overwriting the RC1 artifacts in question and re-verify. I could also 
>>> roll
>>> a new RC2 from the same commit fairly easily.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>>>
 Any chance we could include
 https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the
> `master` branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this 
> should
> work in most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration,
> which I cherrypicked
> to the release branch.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>> OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I
>> don't think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged
>> commit, but with the state of the release scripts at the time I 
>> built the
>> earlier artifacts.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw <
>> rober...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".
>>>
>>> Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to
>>> contain some release script changes that are not reflected in the 
>>> github
>>> branch.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the
 Dataflow worker containers then update this thread.

 Kenn

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kenneth Knowles]

+1 (binding)

I ran the script at
https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#run-validations-using-run_rc_validationsh
except for the part that requires a GitHub PR, since Cham already did that
part.

Kenn

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:11 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev 
wrote:

> +1, verified that my previous findings are fixed.
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:17 AM Chamikara Jayalath 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> Ran some Python scenarios and updated the spreadsheet.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cham
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding)

 (The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't push?
 https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py
 )

>>>
>>> Good point. I'll highlight that I finally implemented the branching
>>> changes from
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> The new guide with diagram is here:
>>> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#tag-a-chosen-commit-for-the-rc
>>>
>>> TL;DR:
>>>  - the release branch continues to be dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.29.0 while the
>>> main branch is now dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.30.0
>>>  - the RC tag v2.29.0-RC1 no longer lies on the release branch. It is a
>>> single tagged commit that removes the dev/SNAPSHOT suffix
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>>
 On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> Please take another look.
>
>  - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and wheels
> are new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip and wheels
> have version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
>  - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from exactly
> the RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to get the version
> to match.
>  - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0 (not
> -SNAPSHOT).
>  - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches the
> RC tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>> At this point, the release train has just about come around to 2.30.0
>> which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense to 
>> cherry-pick
>> anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As it is, I think 
>> we
>> have a good commit and just need to build the expected artifacts. Since 
>> it
>> isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just overwriting the RC1
>> artifacts in question and re-verify. I could also roll a new RC2 from the
>> same commit fairly easily.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>>
>>> Any chance we could include
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the
 `master` branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this 
 should
 work in most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration,
 which I cherrypicked
 to the release branch.

 Kenn

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I
> don't think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged
> commit, but with the state of the release scripts at the time I built 
> the
> earlier artifacts.
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw <
> rober...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".
>>
>> Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to
>> contain some release script changes that are not reflected in the 
>> github
>> branch.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow
>>> worker containers then update this thread.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <
 elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles <
> k...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > The complete staging area is available for your review,
> which includes:
> > * JIRA release 

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Valentyn Tymofieiev]

+1, verified that my previous findings are fixed.

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:17 AM Chamikara Jayalath 
wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> Ran some Python scenarios and updated the spreadsheet.
>
> Thanks,
> Cham
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> (The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't push?
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py
>>> )
>>>
>>
>> Good point. I'll highlight that I finally implemented the branching
>> changes from
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>>
>> The new guide with diagram is here:
>> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#tag-a-chosen-commit-for-the-rc
>>
>> TL;DR:
>>  - the release branch continues to be dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.29.0 while the
>> main branch is now dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.30.0
>>  - the RC tag v2.29.0-RC1 no longer lies on the release branch. It is a
>> single tagged commit that removes the dev/SNAPSHOT suffix
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Please take another look.

  - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and wheels are
 new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip and wheels have
 version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
  - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from exactly
 the RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to get the version
 to match.
  - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0 (not
 -SNAPSHOT).
  - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches the RC
 tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)

 Kenn

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> At this point, the release train has just about come around to 2.30.0
> which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense to 
> cherry-pick
> anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As it is, I think we
> have a good commit and just need to build the expected artifacts. Since it
> isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just overwriting the RC1
> artifacts in question and re-verify. I could also roll a new RC2 from the
> same commit fairly easily.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>
>> Any chance we could include https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548
>> ?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the
>>> `master` branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this 
>>> should
>>> work in most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration,
>>> which I cherrypicked
>>> to the release branch.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I
 don't think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged
 commit, but with the state of the release scripts at the time I built 
 the
 earlier artifacts.

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw <
 rober...@google.com> wrote:

> It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".
>
> Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to
> contain some release script changes that are not reflected in the 
> github
> branch.
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow
>> worker containers then update this thread.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <
>>> elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles <
 k...@apache.org> wrote:

 > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
 includes:
 > * JIRA release notes [1],
 > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
 dist.apache.org [2], which is signed with the key with
 fingerprint 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
 > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
 Repository [4],
 > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
 > * website pull request listing the release 

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Chamikara Jayalath]

+1 (binding)

Ran some Python scenarios and updated the spreadsheet.

Thanks,
Cham

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:39 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw 
> wrote:
>
>> The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding)
>>
>> (The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't push?
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py
>> )
>>
>
> Good point. I'll highlight that I finally implemented the branching
> changes from
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>
> The new guide with diagram is here:
> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#tag-a-chosen-commit-for-the-rc
>
> TL;DR:
>  - the release branch continues to be dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.29.0 while the
> main branch is now dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.30.0
>  - the RC tag v2.29.0-RC1 no longer lies on the release branch. It is a
> single tagged commit that removes the dev/SNAPSHOT suffix
>
> Kenn
>
>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>>> Please take another look.
>>>
>>>  - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and wheels are
>>> new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip and wheels have
>>> version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
>>>  - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from exactly the
>>> RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to get the version to
>>> match.
>>>  - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0 (not
>>> -SNAPSHOT).
>>>  - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches the RC
>>> tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>>
 At this point, the release train has just about come around to 2.30.0
 which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense to cherry-pick
 anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As it is, I think we
 have a good commit and just need to build the expected artifacts. Since it
 isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just overwriting the RC1
 artifacts in question and re-verify. I could also roll a new RC2 from the
 same commit fairly easily.

 Kenn

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:

> Any chance we could include https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>> To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the
>> `master` branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this should
>> work in most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration,
>> which I cherrypicked
>> to the release branch.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I
>>> don't think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged
>>> commit, but with the state of the release scripts at the time I built 
>>> the
>>> earlier artifacts.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".

 Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to
 contain some release script changes that are not reflected in the 
 github
 branch.

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow
> worker containers then update this thread.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <
>> elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>> includes:
>>> > * JIRA release notes [1],
>>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>> dist.apache.org [2], which is signed with the key with
>>> fingerprint 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
>>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>>> [4],
>>> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
>>> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the
>>> API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION.
>>>
>>> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION
>>> supposed to
>>> be 

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kenneth Knowles]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:24 PM Robert Bradshaw  wrote:

> The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding)
>
> (The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't push?
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py
> )
>

Good point. I'll highlight that I finally implemented the branching changes
from
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/205472bdaf3c2c5876533750d417c19b0d1078131a3dc04916082ce8%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E

The new guide with diagram is here:
https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#tag-a-chosen-commit-for-the-rc

TL;DR:
 - the release branch continues to be dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.29.0 while the
main branch is now dev/SNAPSHOT for 2.30.0
 - the RC tag v2.29.0-RC1 no longer lies on the release branch. It is a
single tagged commit that removes the dev/SNAPSHOT suffix

Kenn


> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
>> Please take another look.
>>
>>  - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and wheels are
>> new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip and wheels have
>> version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
>>  - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from exactly the
>> RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to get the version to
>> match.
>>  - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0 (not
>> -SNAPSHOT).
>>  - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches the RC
>> tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>>> At this point, the release train has just about come around to 2.30.0
>>> which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense to cherry-pick
>>> anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As it is, I think we
>>> have a good commit and just need to build the expected artifacts. Since it
>>> isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just overwriting the RC1
>>> artifacts in question and re-verify. I could also roll a new RC2 from the
>>> same commit fairly easily.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>>>
 Any chance we could include https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the
> `master` branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this should
> work in most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration,
> which I cherrypicked
> to the release branch.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>> OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I
>> don't think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged
>> commit, but with the state of the release scripts at the time I built the
>> earlier artifacts.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".
>>>
>>> Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to
>>> contain some release script changes that are not reflected in the github
>>> branch.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow
 worker containers then update this thread.

 Kenn

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <
> elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>> includes:
>> > * JIRA release notes [1],
>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>> dist.apache.org [2], which is signed with the key with
>> fingerprint 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>> [4],
>> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
>> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the
>> API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION.
>>
>> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed
>> to
>> be filled in with numbers?
>>
>
> Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced.
>
> JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the
> gradlew config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8
>
> Kenn

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Robert Bradshaw]

The artifacts and signatures look good to me. +1 (binding)

(The release branch still has the .dev name, maybe you didn't push?
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.29.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/version.py
)

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:36 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

> Please take another look.
>
>  - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and wheels are
> new and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip and wheels have
> version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
>  - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from exactly the
> RC commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to get the version to
> match.
>  - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0 (not
> -SNAPSHOT).
>  - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches the RC
> tag (minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
>> At this point, the release train has just about come around to 2.30.0
>> which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense to cherry-pick
>> anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As it is, I think we
>> have a good commit and just need to build the expected artifacts. Since it
>> isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just overwriting the RC1
>> artifacts in question and re-verify. I could also roll a new RC2 from the
>> same commit fairly easily.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>>
>>> Any chance we could include https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>>
 To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the `master`
 branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this should work in
 most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration, which I
 cherrypicked
 to the release branch.

 Kenn

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I don't
> think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged commit, but
> with the state of the release scripts at the time I built the earlier
> artifacts.
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw 
> wrote:
>
>> It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".
>>
>> Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to
>> contain some release script changes that are not reflected in the github
>> branch.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow
>>> worker containers then update this thread.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <
 elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> includes:
> > * JIRA release notes [1],
> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
> dist.apache.org [2], which is signed with the key with
> fingerprint 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
> [4],
> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the
> API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION.
>
> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed
> to
> be filled in with numbers?
>

 Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced.

 JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the
 gradlew config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8

 Kenn


>
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elh...@ibiblio.org
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kenneth Knowles]

Please take another look.

 - I re-ran the RC creation script so the source release and wheels are new
and built from the RC tag. I confirmed the source zip and wheels have
version 2.29.0 (not .dev or -SNAPSHOT).
 - I fixed and rebuilt Dataflow worker container images from exactly the RC
commit, added dataclasses, with internal changes to get the version to
match.
 - I confirmed that the staged jars already have version 2.29.0 (not
-SNAPSHOT).
 - I confirmed with `diff -r -q` that the source tarball matches the RC tag
(minus the .git* files and directories and gradlew)

Kenn

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:19 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

> At this point, the release train has just about come around to 2.30.0
> which will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense to cherry-pick
> anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As it is, I think we
> have a good commit and just need to build the expected artifacts. Since it
> isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just overwriting the RC1
> artifacts in question and re-verify. I could also roll a new RC2 from the
> same commit fairly easily.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:
>
>> Any chance we could include https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>>> To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the `master`
>>> branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this should work in
>>> most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration, which I
>>> cherrypicked
>>> to the release branch.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>>
 OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I don't
 think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged commit, but
 with the state of the release scripts at the time I built the earlier
 artifacts.

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw 
 wrote:

> It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".
>
> Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to
> contain some release script changes that are not reflected in the github
> branch.
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow
>> worker containers then update this thread.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <
>>> elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

 > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
 includes:
 > * JIRA release notes [1],
 > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
 dist.apache.org [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
 > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
 [4],
 > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
 > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the
 API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
 > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
 OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION.

 Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
 be filled in with numbers?

>>>
>>> Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced.
>>>
>>> JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the
>>> gradlew config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>>


 --
 Elliotte Rusty Harold
 elh...@ibiblio.org

>>>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kenneth Knowles]

At this point, the release train has just about come around to 2.30.0 which
will pick up that change. I don't think it makes sense to cherry-pick
anything more into 2.29.0 unless it is nonfunctional. As it is, I think we
have a good commit and just need to build the expected artifacts. Since it
isn't all the artifacts, I was planning on just overwriting the RC1
artifacts in question and re-verify. I could also roll a new RC2 from the
same commit fairly easily.

Kenn

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:57 PM Reuven Lax  wrote:

> Any chance we could include https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
>> To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the `master`
>> branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this should work in
>> most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration, which I
>> cherrypicked
>> to the release branch.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>>> OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I don't
>>> think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged commit, but
>>> with the state of the release scripts at the time I built the earlier
>>> artifacts.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".

 Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to
 contain some release script changes that are not reflected in the github
 branch.

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

> Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow
> worker containers then update this thread.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <
>> elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>> includes:
>>> > * JIRA release notes [1],
>>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>> dist.apache.org [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>>> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
>>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
>>> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION.
>>>
>>> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
>>> be filled in with numbers?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced.
>>
>> JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the
>> gradlew config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Elliotte Rusty Harold
>>> elh...@ibiblio.org
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Reuven Lax]

Any chance we could include https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14548?

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:54 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

> To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the `master`
> branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this should work in
> most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration, which I
> cherrypicked
> to the release branch.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
>> OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I don't
>> think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged commit, but
>> with the state of the release scripts at the time I built the earlier
>> artifacts.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".
>>>
>>> Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to contain
>>> some release script changes that are not reflected in the github branch.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>>
 Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow worker
 containers then update this thread.

 Kenn

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <
> elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>> includes:
>> > * JIRA release notes [1],
>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>> dist.apache.org [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
>> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION.
>>
>> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
>> be filled in with numbers?
>>
>
> Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced.
>
> JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the
> gradlew config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8
>
> Kenn
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Elliotte Rusty Harold
>> elh...@ibiblio.org
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kenneth Knowles]

To clarify: I am running and fixing the release scripts on the `master`
branch. They work from fresh clones of the RC tag so this should work in
most cases. The exception is the GitHub Actions configuration, which I
cherrypicked
to the release branch.

Kenn

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:34 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

> OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I don't
> think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged commit, but
> with the state of the release scripts at the time I built the earlier
> artifacts.
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw 
> wrote:
>
>> It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".
>>
>> Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to contain
>> some release script changes that are not reflected in the github branch.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow worker
>>> containers then update this thread.
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>>


 On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <
 elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles 
> wrote:
>
> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> includes:
> > * JIRA release notes [1],
> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
> dist.apache.org [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION.
>
> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
> be filled in with numbers?
>

 Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced.

 JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the
 gradlew config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8

 Kenn


>
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elh...@ibiblio.org
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kenneth Knowles]

OK it sounds like I need to re-roll the artifacts in question. I don't
think anything raised here indicates a problem with the tagged commit, but
with the state of the release scripts at the time I built the earlier
artifacts.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 1:03 PM Robert Bradshaw  wrote:

> It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".
>
> Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to contain
> some release script changes that are not reflected in the github branch.
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow worker
>> containers then update this thread.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold <
>>> elh...@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles 
 wrote:

 > The complete staging area is available for your review, which
 includes:
 > * JIRA release notes [1],
 > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
 dist.apache.org [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
 > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
 > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
 > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
 reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
 > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
 OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION.

 Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
 be filled in with numbers?

>>>
>>> Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced.
>>>
>>> JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the gradlew
>>> config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>>


 --
 Elliotte Rusty Harold
 elh...@ibiblio.org

>>>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Robert Bradshaw]

It looks like the wheels are also versioned "2.29.0.dev".

Not sure if it's important, but the source tarball also seems to contain
some release script changes that are not reflected in the github branch.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:41 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

> Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow worker
> containers then update this thread.
>
> Kenn
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>>> > * JIRA release notes [1],
>>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>>> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
>>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
>>> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION.
>>>
>>> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
>>> be filled in with numbers?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced.
>>
>> JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the gradlew
>> config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Elliotte Rusty Harold
>>> elh...@ibiblio.org
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kenneth Knowles]

Thanks for the details, Valentyn & Cham. I will fix the Dataflow worker
containers then update this thread.

Kenn

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>> > * JIRA release notes [1],
>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
>> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle
>> JDK JDK_VERSION.
>>
>> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
>> be filled in with numbers?
>>
>
> Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced.
>
> JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the gradlew
> config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8
>
> Kenn
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Elliotte Rusty Harold
>> elh...@ibiblio.org
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Kenneth Knowles]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold 
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> > * JIRA release notes [1],
> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle
> JDK JDK_VERSION.
>
> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
> be filled in with numbers?
>

Yes, I missed that these were variables to be replaced.

JDK_VERSION=8u181 (1.8) and the Gradle version is taken from the gradlew
config so no need to include in the template, but it is 6.8

Kenn


>
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elh...@ibiblio.org
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Chamikara Jayalath]

I tried running Python quickstart using the validation script

but seems like it fails due to picking the wrong version (2.28.0).
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14574
https://ci-beam.apache.org/job/beam_PostRelease_Python_Candidate/195/console

The Version of the Python artifact looks correct so I suspect the
validation script has to be adjusted to validate the RC for Python.

Thanks,
Cham

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:08 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre 
wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> Le 16 avr. 2021 à 06:01, Kenneth Knowles  a écrit :
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.29.0,
> as follows:
>
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> Reviewers are encouraged to test their own use cases with the release
> candidate, and vote +1 if no issues are found.
>
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
> * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle
> JDK JDK_VERSION.
> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
> dist.apache.org [2].
> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.29.0 release to help with validation
> [9].
> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
>
> New this time around: the Python artifacts are published to pypi as a
> pre-release version [11].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>
> I want to let everyone know that I will be offline on vacation tomorrow,
> so if you find an issue it would be great if you can also propose a fix and
> it is fine for any committer to merge it to the release branch in my
> absence so, if necessary, I can get right on RC2 when I return.
>
> Kenn
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12349629
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.29.0
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1165/
> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.29.0-RC1
> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14556
> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/612
> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14562
> [9]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1652881637
> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam=image
> [11] https://pypi.org/project/apache-beam/2.29.0rc1/
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Jean-Baptiste Onofre]

+1 (binding)

Regards
JB

> Le 16 avr. 2021 à 06:01, Kenneth Knowles  a écrit :
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.29.0, as 
> follows:
> 
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
> 
> Reviewers are encouraged to test their own use cases with the release 
> candidate, and vote +1 if no issues are found.
> 
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org 
>  [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint 
> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API reference 
> manual [7], and the blog post [8].
> * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 
> JDK_VERSION.
> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the 
> dist.apache.org  [2].
> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.29.0 release to help with validation [9].
> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10].
> 
> New this time around: the Python artifacts are published to pypi as a 
> pre-release version [11].
> 
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority 
> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> 
> I want to let everyone know that I will be offline on vacation tomorrow, so 
> if you find an issue it would be great if you can also propose a fix and it 
> is fine for any committer to merge it to the release branch in my absence so, 
> if necessary, I can get right on RC2 when I return.
> 
> Kenn
> 
> [1] 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12349629
>  
> 
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.29.0 
> 
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS 
> 
> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1165/ 
> 
> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.29.0-RC1 
> 
> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14556 
> 
> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/612 
> 
> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/14562 
> 
> [9] 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1652881637
>  
> 
> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam=image 
> 
> [11] https://pypi.org/project/apache-beam/2.29.0rc1/ 
> 

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Tyson Hamilton]

+1 (non-binding)

I ran the java local quickstarts and verified the nexmark tests.

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:50 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev 
wrote:

> Hi Kenn,
>
> There is a version mismatch between Beam version and Dataflow Python
> worker version (the latter currently has version 2.28.0.dev), you can fix
> the Dataflow containers themselves without rebuilding the RC.
>
> Also Dataflow containers for Python 3.6 do not include 'dataclasses' - a
> Beam's dependency, which will cause Dataflow jobs to fail in an environment
> without internet.
>
> Thanks,
> Valentyn
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:06 PM Pablo Estrada  wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>> I built and ran basic tests with existing Dataflow Templates.
>> Best
>> -P.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>>> > * JIRA release notes [1],
>>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>>> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
>>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
>>> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>>> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION.
>>>
>>> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
>>> be filled in with numbers?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Elliotte Rusty Harold
>>> elh...@ibiblio.org
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Valentyn Tymofieiev]

Hi Kenn,

There is a version mismatch between Beam version and Dataflow Python worker
version (the latter currently has version 2.28.0.dev), you can fix the
Dataflow containers themselves without rebuilding the RC.

Also Dataflow containers for Python 3.6 do not include 'dataclasses' - a
Beam's dependency, which will cause Dataflow jobs to fail in an environment
without internet.

Thanks,
Valentyn

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 1:06 PM Pablo Estrada  wrote:

> +1 (binding)
> I built and ran basic tests with existing Dataflow Templates.
> Best
> -P.
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>>
>> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>> > * JIRA release notes [1],
>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
>> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
>> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
>> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle
>> JDK JDK_VERSION.
>>
>> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
>> be filled in with numbers?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Elliotte Rusty Harold
>> elh...@ibiblio.org
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Pablo Estrada]

+1 (binding)
I built and ran basic tests with existing Dataflow Templates.
Best
-P.

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:42 AM Elliotte Rusty Harold 
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:
>
> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> > * JIRA release notes [1],
> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> > * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
> > * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API
> reference manual [7], and the blog post [8].
> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle
> JDK JDK_VERSION.
>
> Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
> be filled in with numbers?
>
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elh...@ibiblio.org
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.29.0, release candidate #1

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org [2], 
> which is signed with the key with fingerprint 
> 03DBA3E6ABDD04BFD1558DC16ED551A8AE02461C [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v2.29.0-RC1" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing the API reference 
> manual [7], and the blog post [8].
> * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 
> JDK_VERSION.

Are the MAVEN_VERSION and OpenJDK/Oracle JDK JDK_VERSION supposed to
be filled in with numbers?


--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elh...@ibiblio.org