The vote has passed.
There are 5 +1 binding votes:
- Robert Bradshaw
- Jan Lukavský
- Ahmet Altay
- Jean-Baptiste Onofré
- Alexey Romanenko
Additionally there are 5 non-binding +1 votes:
- Danny McCormick
- Svetak Sundhar
- XQ Hu
- Bruno Volpato
- Yi Hu
There are no disapproving vote
OK I'm ready.
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 4:30 PM Ahmet Altay via dev
wrote:
> Thank you for the information.
>
> I agree with Kenn in that case. This could wait for the next release.
> Unless there is another reason to do the RC2.
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:30 PM Yi Hu wrote:
>
Thank you for the information.
I agree with Kenn in that case. This could wait for the next release.
Unless there is another reason to do the RC2.
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:30 PM Yi Hu wrote:
>
> Would it impact all python users including breaking the new user, quick
>> start experience? Or wo
> Would it impact all python users including breaking the new user, quick
> start experience? Or would it impact users of a specific IO or
> configuration?
>
It is the latter. It will impact users of Specific IO (BigQueryIO read)
specific configuration (Direct_Read). Note that the default configur
Would it impact all python users including breaking the new user, quick
start experience? Or would it impact users of a specific IO or
configuration? If it is the former, I think it would be worth fixing it
just to have a working new user experience. With new user experience I am
thinking about som
After thinking this through a bit more, I am inclined to release RC1 with
this noted as a known issue, unless there are other more compelling reasons
to issues a second RC.
Why?
- It is more-or-less by design that end users of Beam Python have
dependencies shift under them; breakage and recovery
OK I can cherrypick it so they have an upgrade fix. But also we should
instruct users to pin their fastavro version to a good version. That is
probably safer and easier than upgrading Beam.
Our containers that we build have the version pinned, right? So will this
also cause all the prior container
Yes, and moreover, this specific issue will break the user the same way for
*all* Beam versions (2.50.0, 2.49.0, etc) after Oct 3. That said the issue
is not limited to Beam 2.50.0 though.
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 4:08 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> If we had closed the release today, this would stil
If we had closed the release today, this would still have broken all our
users, correct?
Kenn
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 3:37 PM Anand Inguva via dev
wrote:
> There was a regression[1] on fastavro latest release 1.8.4. Fix was merged
> at https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/28896. The RC1 includes
There was a regression[1] on fastavro latest release 1.8.4. Fix was merged
at https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/28896. The RC1 includes that version
in the range for fastavro[2]. I think we need to CP
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/28896 to solve the fastavro regression.
[1] https://github.
Ran a couple of Java pipelines "as a newb user" to make sure our
instructions weren't out of date. There are some errors in the instructions
but they don't have to do with this release.
Re-ran mass_comment.py on https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/28663. There
are enough red signals there that som
+1 (non-binding) Tested on Java IO load tests (
https://github.com/bvolpato/DataflowTemplates/tree/56d18a31c1c95e58543d7a1656bd83d7e859b482/it)
BigQueryIO, TextIO, BigtableIO, SpannerIO on Dataflow legacy runner and
runner v2
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 3:23 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> Additionally
Additionally we need https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/28665/files in
order to run GHA tests.
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 3:19 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> That PR was prior to many cherry-picks so it is not the signal we need. I
> have updated it to the tip of the release-2.51.0 branch.
>
> There w
That PR was prior to many cherry-picks so it is not the signal we need. I
have updated it to the tip of the release-2.51.0 branch.
There were some post-commit tests involving JPMS that I believe need
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/28726 to pass.
Kenn
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 2:53 PM Valentyn
> PR to run tests against release branch [12].
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/28663 is closed and test signal is no
longer available. did all the tests pass?
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 5:32 AM Alexey Romanenko
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> —
> Alexey
>
> > On 5 Oct 2023, at 18:38, Jean-Baptiste O
+1 (binding)
—
Alexey
> On 5 Oct 2023, at 18:38, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thanks !
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:58 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.51.0,
>> as fol
+1 (binding)
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:58 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.51.0, as
> follows:
>
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comm
+1 (binding) - reviewed doc updates.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:28 AM Jan Lukavský wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Tested Java SDK with Flink Runner on own test-cases.
>
> Jan
> On 10/4/23 21:10, Bruno Volpato via dev wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> Tested with https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/
+1 (binding)
Tested Java SDK with Flink Runner on own test-cases.
Jan
On 10/4/23 21:10, Bruno Volpato via dev wrote:
+1 (non-binding).
Tested with https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/DataflowTemplates
(Java SDK 11, Dataflow Runner using both legacy and v2).
Thanks Kenn!
On Wed, Oct 4,
+1 (non-binding).
Tested with https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/DataflowTemplates (Java
SDK 11, Dataflow Runner using both legacy and v2).
Thanks Kenn!
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 3:03 PM Robert Bradshaw via dev
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Verified artifacts and signatures and tested a simple py
+1 (binding)
Verified artifacts and signatures and tested a simple python pipeline in a
fresh environment with a wheel.
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 8:05 AM Ritesh Ghorse via dev
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) validated Go SDK quickstart and Python Streaming
> quickstart on Dataflow runner.
>
> Thanks!
>
+1 (non-binding) validated Go SDK quickstart and Python Streaming
quickstart on Dataflow runner.
Thanks!
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:40 PM XQ Hu via dev wrote:
> +1 (non-binding). Tested the simple dataflow ML starter job with
> https://github.com/google/dataflow-ml-starter/actions/runs/6397130175
+1 (non-binding). Tested the simple dataflow ML starter job with
https://github.com/google/dataflow-ml-starter/actions/runs/6397130175/job/17364408813
.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:29 PM Danny McCormick via dev
wrote:
> All Beam Python versions 2.50 and greater run exclusively on Dataflow
> runner
All Beam Python versions 2.50 and greater run exclusively on Dataflow
runner v2, so we don't need to test v1 anymore. I'll delete those rows from
the spreadsheet
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:25 PM Svetak Sundhar
wrote:
> +1 Non Binding
>
> Tested Python Direct Runner and Dataflow Runner as well.
>
>
+1 Non Binding
Tested Python Direct Runner and Dataflow Runner as well.
On the spreadsheet, I came across "Dataflow v1 (until 2.49.0, inclusive)",
and do not fully understand what this means.
Does this mean
(1) we shouldn't be testing on Dataflow runner v1 for releases after 2.49 or
(2) make sur
+1 (non-binding)
Tested python/ML execution with
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/examples/notebooks/beam-ml/run_inference_huggingface.ipynb
(interactive runner) and
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/examples/notebooks/beam-ml/automatic_model_refresh.ipynb
(Dataflow runner).
Th
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.51.0,
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
