Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Retrying the whole step succeeded, so somehow this was an ephemeral error. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > I've fixed the Python issue - turns out my local path got messed up. > > However, mvn release:prepare is now failing with the following. I haven't >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

I've fixed the Python issue - turns out my local path got messed up. However, mvn release:prepare is now failing with the following. I haven't seen this failure before - does anyone know what might be causing it? [*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

This is with the CP of Eugene's PR. However Eugene's PR does not touch anything Python. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Reuven Lax wrote: > > mvn -Prelease clean install > > > [*INFO*] *--- *exec-maven-plugin:1.5.0:exec *(setuptools-clean)* @ > beam-sdks-python* ---* > >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

mvn -Prelease clean install [*INFO*] *--- *exec-maven-plugin:1.5.0:exec *(setuptools-clean)* @ beam-sdks-python* ---* Could not find platform independent libraries Could not find platform dependent libraries Consider setting $PYTHONHOME to [:] ImportError: No module named site [*ERROR*]

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Could you send the command you used that produced this error? I can't reproduce it at the tip of the release-2.2.0 branch. On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 5:34 AM Reuven Lax wrote: > I'm trying to do the last CP and cut RC4, but I'm getting a compilation > failure in Python -

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

I'm trying to do the last CP and cut RC4, but I'm getting a compilation failure in Python - "ImportError: No module named site" Did we possibly break the release branch on one of the Python CPs? Reuven On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Hi Reuven, +1 for RC4, and don't worry: it's part of the process. I prefer to have a long release process than a crappy a release ;) That's exactly the purpose of review & vote. I definitely think that having releases more often will reduce such kind of issue. Regards JB On 11/12/2017

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

I definitely appreciate the frustration about how long this release is taking. It's verging on the point of ridiculous at this point, and we need to fix some of the things that caused us to get to this state (for one thing our infrastructure was so busted at one point, that Valentyn spent 2 weeks

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

If the purpose is to release 2.2.1 in one week, why not just to a RC4 ? It's not a regression because WriteFiles is new and extend the previous FileSource. So it could consider as a severe bug, especially on WriteFiles which is important. The core issue is the time we spent already on this

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

-1 (binding) I agree with Eugene, data loss is severe. As Eugene seems confident to fix that quickly, I think it's worth to cut a RC4. However, I would introduce a deadline. As I would like to propose a release cycle of a release every 6 weeks (whatever it contains, but it really important

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Considering that the holiday is around the corner, it would be nice to release 2.2.0 sooner.  Cheers  Original message From: Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com.INVALID> Date: 11/10/17 12:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: dev@beam.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Both issues are particular cases. Can the 2.2.0 be out and a 2.2.1 done quickly after? Would be very appreciated to have the 2.2.0 fixes to not depend on snapshots anymore due to some blockers found in the core of previous releases. Le 10 nov. 2017 21:23, "Chamikara Jayalath"

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

We found another issue that should probably be fixed in 2.2.0 release: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3172 A fix is out for review and will be merged soon. Thanks, Cham On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:43 AM Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > Unfortunately I think I

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Our release notes look like nothing more than a query for the closed jira issues. Do we have a top-level summary to highlight the big ticket items in the release? And in particular somewhere to mention that this is likely the last release to support Java 7 that'll get widely read? On Thu, Nov 9,

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Thanks, This RC is currently failing on a number of validation steps, so we need to cut at least one more RC. Fingers crossed that it will be the last one. Reuven On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Konstantinos Katsiapis < katsia...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Just a remark: Release of

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Just a remark: Release of Tensorflow Transform 0.4.0 depends on release of Apache Beam 2.2.0 so upvoting for a release (the sooner the better). On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > Are we waiting for any more

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4109 is out to address both findings I reported earlier. On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Etienne Chauchot wrote: > Just as a remark, I compared (on my laptop though) queries execution times > on my previous run of 2.2.0-RC3 with release

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Just as a remark, I compared (on my laptop though) queries execution times on my previous run of 2.2.0-RC3 with release 2.1.0 and I did not see any performance regression. Best Etienne Le 09/11/2017 à 03:13, Valentyn Tymofieiev a écrit : I looked at Python side of Dataflow & Direct runners

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

I looked at Python side of Dataflow & Direct runners on Linux. There are two findings: 1. One of the mobile gaming examples did not pass for Dataflow runner, addressed in: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4102

[VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Hi everyone, Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version 2.2.0, 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