Re: Credentials Rotation Failure on Metrics cluster (2023-11-01)

Yep, it is safe to ignore On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 2:43 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > +Danny McCormick is this the converse of the > other failure? (I didn't click through I just read the other thread) > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:10 PM gacti...@beam.apache.org < > beamacti...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: Credentials Rotation Failure on Metrics cluster (2023-11-01)

+Danny McCormick is this the converse of the other failure? (I didn't click through I just read the other thread) On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:10 PM gacti...@beam.apache.org < beamacti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Something went wrong during the automatic credentials rotation for Metrics > Cluster,

Re: Beam 2.52.0 Release

I just cut the 2.52.0 release branch . All commits after https://github.com/apache/beam/commit/ea8596f2df0e3e4b9da9f215ae6745c2ddfb6612 will be targeted for a later release. There is currently still one open release blocker

Re: Credentials Rotation Failure on IO-Datastores cluster

My guess is that this is due to running this both on GitHub Actions and Jenkins. The Actions run succeeded, so I don't think we need to worry about this - https://github.com/apache/beam/actions/runs/6714783844 It seems like for the metrics job the opposite happened - the Actions run failing

Beam High Priority Issue Report (48)

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 P1 Issues: https://github.com/apache/beam/issues/29214 [Failing Test]:

Re: Processing time watermarks in KinesisIO

> That is a fair point, but I don't think we can guarantee that we have a timestamp embedded in the record. (Or is there some stable kafka metadata we could use here, I'm not that familiar with what kafka guarantees). We could require it to be opt-in given the caveats. Kafka (and Kinesis)

RE: Re: KafkaIO does not make use of Kafka Consumer Groups [kafka] [java] [io]

Can't agree with Shahar Frank more On 2023/04/19 18:17:15 Shahar Frank wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I think I've already answered these in a previous email but let me answer > them again. > > I was specifically responding to quoted points from your last email. I >> really don't understand why you,