Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version 2.47.0,
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
<<< text/html; charset=UTF-8: Unrecognized >>>
There's enough concern over the data loss bug that an RC3 is warranted.
This vote is now closed, I'll send another one out once the new RC is
ready. Feel free to continue validations on RC2.
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 12:35 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> +1 to cherrypicking and creagtin a new RC
>
> On
+1 to cherrypicking and creagtin a new RC
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 4:03 AM Ahmet Altay via dev
wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/issues/26521 was a severe issue. Should we
> cherry pick the fix (https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/26503) and build
> an RC3? (/cc @Reuven Lax @John Casey
> )
+1 to get target for 2.48.0
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 11:33 AM Jack McCluskey via dev
wrote:
> I'd suggest shooting for 2.48.0 so we're ahead of the end-of-support date.
> We're also supporting 5 different Python versions in 2.47.0, it's probably
> for the best to try and pare that down.
>
> On Thu
IIRC, we are supporting Python versions until they are out of support.
This would suggest keeping 3.7 in 2.48. (Not that it matters much.) Is
there a significant gain in dropping 3.7 support before the cut?
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 8:33 AM Jack McCluskey via dev
wrote:
>
> I'd suggest shooting for
I'd suggest shooting for 2.48.0 so we're ahead of the end-of-support date.
We're also supporting 5 different Python versions in 2.47.0, it's probably
for the best to try and pare that down.
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 11:25 AM Anand Inguva via dev
wrote:
> Thanks Ritesh!!
>
> Python 3.7 support is go
Thanks Ritesh!!
Python 3.7 support is going to end on June 27th 2023. Beam 2.48.0 may get
released ~1-2 weeks earlier of that date.
My question here is should we target 2.48.0 or 2.49.0 to stop supporting
Python 3.7 for beam?
Thanks,
Anand
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 10:25 PM Jeff Zhang wrote:
> T
https://github.com/apache/beam/issues/26521 was a severe issue. Should we
cherry pick the fix (https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/26503) and build
an RC3? (/cc @Reuven Lax @John Casey
)
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 2:01 PM Jack McCluskey via dev
wrote:
> I have just now realized I didn't replace the
This is your daily summary of Beam's current high priority issues that may need
attention.
See https://beam.apache.org/contribute/issue-priorities for the meaning and
expectations around issue priorities.
Unassigned P0 Issues:
https://github.com/apache/beam/issues/26536 [Bug]: Accessing Hi
On 5/3/23 19:57, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
My big picture hot take: this is useful, but the problem we really
need to solve is topology change, which will obsolete coder evolution.
I think Beam model has a role in this. It isn't just a runner-specific
thing. We need to ensure the model makes it p
11 matches
Mail list logo
