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

Just a reminder that for ASF releases we are voting on releasing the source, the binaries are simply a nice-to-have. Nevertheless, this is the right call since the majority of users will use the binaries, not the source. As Steve pointed out, we don't want to release something broken, even if it i

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

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

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

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

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

-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 co

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

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

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

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

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

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 a

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

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

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

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

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

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 a

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

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 co

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

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 do

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

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 tha

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

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 source

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

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

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

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 example

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

+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 ple

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

+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 futu

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

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). On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rui Wa

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

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 > [ ]

[VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #1

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], *