Sounds good. I'll plan on stable+beta next week, then. Initial warning stands, that I will start locking down what can get into 1.9.0 at that point.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> wrote: > No vote indeed, just to gather feedback on a particular fixed point in > time. It also gives a bit more trust to a tarball than to a git pull. > > Bolke > > > On 20 Sep 2017, at 20:09, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I can do a beta. Is the process significantly different? IIRC, it's > > basically the same, just no vote, right? > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Bolke de Bruin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Are you sure you want to go ahead and do RCs right away? Isn’t a beta a > >> bit smarter? > >> > >> - Bolke > >> > >>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 19:41, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hey all, > >>> > >>> I want to send out a warning that I'm planning to cut the stable branch > >>> next week, and begin the RC1 release vote. Once the stable branch is > >> cut, I > >>> will be locking down what commits get cherry picked into the branch, > and > >>> will only be doing PRs that are required to get the release out. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Chris Riccomini < > [email protected] > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hey all, > >>>> > >>>> An update on the 1.9.0 release. Here are the outstanding PRs that are > >>>> slated to be included into 1.9.0: > >>>> > >>>> ISSUE ID |STATUS |DESCRIPTION > >>>> AIRFLOW-1617 |Open |XSS Vulnerability in Variable endpoint > >>>> AIRFLOW-1611 |Open |Customize logging in Airflow > >>>> AIRFLOW-1605 |Reopened |Fix log source of local loggers > >>>> AIRFLOW-1604 |Open |Rename the logger to log > >>>> AIRFLOW-1525 |Open |Fix minor LICENSE & NOTICE issue > >>>> AIRFLOW-1499 |In Progres|Eliminate duplicate and unneeded code > >>>> AIRFLOW-1198 |Open |HDFSOperator to operate HDFS > >>>> AIRFLOW-1055 |Open |airflow/jobs.py:create_dag_run() exception > for > >>>> @on > >>>> AIRFLOW-1019 |Open |active_dagruns shouldn't include paused DAGs > >>>> AIRFLOW-1018 |Open |Scheduler DAG processes can not log to stdout > >>>> AIRFLOW-1015 |Open |TreeView displayed over task instances > >>>> AIRFLOW-1013 |Open |airflow/jobs.py:manage_slas() exception for > >>>> @once > >>>> AIRFLOW-976 |Open |Mark success running task causes it to fail > >>>> AIRFLOW-914 |Open |Refactor BackfillJobTest.test_backfill_ > >> examples > >>>> to > >>>> AIRFLOW-913 |Open |Refactor tests.CoreTest.test_scheduler_job > to > >>>> real > >>>> AIRFLOW-912 |Open |Refactor tests and build matrix > >>>> AIRFLOW-888 |Open |Operators should not push XComs by default > >>>> AIRFLOW-828 |Open |Add maximum size for XComs > >>>> AIRFLOW-825 |Open |Add Dataflow semantics > >>>> AIRFLOW-788 |Open |Context unexpectedly added to hive conf > >>>> > >>>> I will be locking down what can get cherry-picked into the 1.9.0 > branch > >>>> shortly, so if you have something you want in, please set the fix > >> version > >>>> to 1.9.0. > >>>> > >>>> We (at WePay) have deployed 1.9.0 into our dev cluster, and it has > been > >>>> running smoothly for several days. > >>>> > >>>> ** I could really use help verifying stability. If you run Airflow, > it's > >>>> in your best interest to deploy the 1.9.0 test branch somewhere, and > >> verify > >>>> it's working for your workload. ** > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Chris > >>>> > >> > >> > >
