Hi Max,

Are you picking this up? I see some open PRs from you that are not too active. 
It would be nice to have a release in 3-4 weeks that also targets full 
compatibility with Apache so we can graduate to top level. Besides summer break 
is getting close and after the summer 1.9.0 is scheduled.

Cheers
Bolke

> On 18 May 2017, at 20:54, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Releasing+Airflow 
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Releasing+Airflow>
> 
> (See higher up in the thread)
> 
> Please make sure to address some of the outstanding Apache issues (see also 
> quote below):
> 
> 1. Your name is still mentioned somewhere as author. A patch wasn’t cherry 
> picked earlier for this
> 2. Copyrights 2016-2017 Apache, before Airbnb / you
> 3. License file formatting
> 
> Otherwise it won’t pass the IPMC.
> 
> 
> Quote from the IPMC:
> ====
> 
> +1, however there's a few issues with the LICENSE file:
> 
> - Would be good to list out the locations of each file (or path to a group
> of files) (some have this, and others do not so its hard to follow)
> - There's errant /* .. */ around each license declaration, which should be
> removed.
> - Missing license bodies for FooTable v2, jQuery Clock Plugin,
> 
> Likewise, your NOTICE has copyright 2011-2017, however Airflow hasn't been
> incubating that long.  If you like, you can give origination notices to the
> original creators here to specify the original copyright dates.
> 
> I would challenge the podling to see if there's a way to simplify their
> LICENSE by instead using npm or some other javascript packaging tool to
> build a distribution, rather than shipping the dependencies in the source
> release, makes it much easier to use.
> 
> As the podling matures, would be good to see information about the author
> switch from an individual to a community (in setup.cfg, its already in
> setup.py so may have been a miss)
> 
> It would be great to see a binary distribution in the next vote to see how
> that may work, its not clear how to build it from this.  Likewise, don't
> hesitate to clean up your old release artifacts, I downloaded the wrong
> artifact at first.
> 
> ====
> 
> Bolke.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 18 May 2017, at 20:49, Maxime Beauchemin <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Chris & Bolke, do you have a TODO list / wiki detailing the step-by-step
>> process?
>> 
>> Max
>> 
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Maxime Beauchemin <
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>>> @Andrewm, we can only assume that the author of each commit in master on
>>> top of 1.8.1 wants their commits into 1.8.2.
>>> 
>>> -------------------------
>>> 
>>> Ok cool, I'll take this on then, and I'm asking Arthur to see if he wants
>>> to help / oversee the process.
>>> 
>>> I'm planning to make 1.8.2 essentially same as 1.8.1 plus the set of
>>> "cherries" that we use at Airbnb in production and every bugfix / minor
>>> feature that looks benign to us. Given that, we're committing to try out RC
>>> along with everyone else.
>>> 
>>> What cadence are we aiming at? What should be the target date for the RC?
>>> 
>>> Max
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Max,
>>>> 
>>>> Sounds reasonable. For the Release Manager it is really mostly a
>>>> management job. Chasing, prioritising etc. While it is nice to have a rm
>>>> also being able to run the RCs themselves I don’t think it is an absolute
>>>> requirement. Especially, as I think we should trust the community to test
>>>> and then vote.
>>>> 
>>>> As mentioned the 1.8.X release series should focus on bug fixes,
>>>> performance issue and minor feature updates (UI fixes, fixes to some
>>>> hooks/operators). 1.9.X is for the larger changes. So indeed please keep
>>>> 1.8.2 simple!
>>>> 
>>>> Fully understand that business priorities can take precedence. I (and I
>>>> guess Chris as well) were just hoping that also some of the other
>>>> committers would chime in.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Bolke
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 18 May 2017, at 20:18, Maxime Beauchemin <[email protected] 
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry about the delay answering, I wanted to sync up with the Airflow
>>>> team
>>>>> here at Airbnb before I replied here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Quick note to say that the folks at Airbnb are putting a plan together
>>>> as
>>>>> to how we can move towards smooth releases with higher confidence in the
>>>>> future. That plan involves improving the build/test process as well as
>>>> our
>>>>> staging infrastructure, possibly enabling progressive rollouts
>>>> internally.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For context, the team that works on Airflow at Airbnb is "Data Platform"
>>>>> and is also on the hook for big chunks of non-Airflow-related
>>>>> infrastructure work that hit us recently and accounts for more than the
>>>>> team's bandwidth at this time. Given that, the team doesn't want to
>>>> commit
>>>>> the time/risk to deploy RCs in production in the short term. Clearly
>>>>> Airflow is still a priority for the team, but on the short term we have
>>>>> critical things prioritized above that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Part of the solution is for us to hire more engineers, and one of the
>>>> open
>>>>> seats is a dedicated role on Airflow tackling things from feature
>>>> building
>>>>> to release management. Hopefully we can widen our bandwidth shortly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the meantime, I can commit the time to handle a release, but this
>>>>> release won't hit production at Airbnb for a little while, which makes
>>>> me
>>>>> wonder whether it's worth committing the time. Maybe there's a
>>>>> Fedora/RHEL-type scenario here (using a cutting-edge community edition
>>>> to
>>>>> stabilize LTS releases), but we know it's not ideal for Airbnb and for
>>>> the
>>>>> community. The end goal is clearly to have steady, high-confidence,
>>>> mostly
>>>>> automated, regular releases and it feels like time is best spent
>>>> working in
>>>>> that direction.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Another option is to make [upcoming] 1.8.2 very simple, as 1.8.1 + the
>>>> few
>>>>> cherries we run in production already at Airbnb, holding the 50+ extra
>>>>> commits in master for 1.8.3. This is marginally useful but helps getting
>>>>> the release mechanics oiled up.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm trying to be as transparent as I can here, and open to discuss the
>>>>> different ways we can move forward.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Max
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected] 
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With 1.8.1 we have very much improved the reliability airflow, which is
>>>>>> great as many new features entered 1.8.0 and the gap from 1.7.1 was
>>>> huge.
>>>>>> What is also great is that we are slowly but surely increasing the test
>>>>>> coverage which mitigates some of the risk of regressions going
>>>> forward. As
>>>>>> you know the 1.8.X releases will continue to focus on improved
>>>> reliability,
>>>>>> performance improvements and minor feature updates. The 1.9.X release
>>>>>> cycle, which should start around September, will allow for larger
>>>> feature
>>>>>> updates.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I expect 1.8.2 not to have too many PRs, so it will be a relatively
>>>> simple
>>>>>> release process:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Apply bug fixes
>>>>>> 2. Add performance fixes
>>>>>> 3. Fix some outstanding Apache requirements (Author, Licensing etc)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The process of creating a distribution has been detailed by Chris here:
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Releasing+Airflow 
>>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Releasing+Airflow>
>>>> <
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Releasing+Airflow 
>>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Releasing+Airflow>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now we just need a volunteer (preferably from the committers) to be the
>>>>>> Release Manager for 1.8.2 :-).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Who is willing to take this on and make history?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Bolke
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 

Reply via email to