I agree with Eugene's proposal. Suppose it takes <n> days to grok and fix CreateStreamTest. If we compare delaying 2.1.0 versus releasing it immediately and starting 2.2.0:
- Users get 2.1.0 ASAP and then 2.2.0 in <n> days - Users get 2.1.0 in <n> days The now-failing tests were flaky, and we have some confidence that the changes that caused the failing are good. So if this is an apparent regression for a user, it is likely that they are in danger already. A third alternative is that users get 2.1.0 ASAP, 2.2.0 ASAP after that to keep the cadence going, and 2.3.0 after <n> days if we can't sort this quickly. This is consistent with treating it as an existing and ongoing bug, which it likely is. Kenn On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Eugene Kirpichov < [email protected]> wrote: > If https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2671 is a 2.1.0 blocker then > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1868 also should be, because > it's a failure of another method in the same test and I suppose it > indicates brokenness to the same extent. Or both shouldn't. > > Given the progress so far, the chances of resolving the JIRA quickly are > looking bleak to me now, and the release has been going on for almost 1 > month, and many large improvements have been added to Beam HEAD since the > first RC was cut. > > I'm still in favor of: > 1) cutting 2.1.0 RC3 immediately, and acknowledging that streaming in Spark > runner in cluster mode is still (potentially) broken in this release - to > the same or smaller extent than in 2.0.0, so this is not a regression. The > extent is still not clear to me; I asked on the JIRA. > 2) immediately or very soon after this 2.1.0, start cutting 2.2.0, and > target these issues to 2.2.0. > > My argument is: > - 2.1.0 contains 2.5 months worth of new features, and releasing them will > benefit a lot of existing Beam users > - I don't think there are that many users for whom it's critically > important whether the first release with working Spark streaming will be > 2.1.0 or 2.2.0, especially if we start cutting 2.2.0 very soon. This is > speculation though > - (subjective personal feeling) The release process requires participation > and momentum from community members, and letting it drag on for too long > loses that momentum. > > We should anyway pursue resolving the issues asap, and users who were > eagerly waiting for Spark streaming to work properly can run Beam at HEAD > in the window between when they are first resolved and when 2.2.0 is > released. > > What do you think? > > On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:31 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Another quick update. > > > > Aviem updated the Jira as he and his team wants to take a look. I'm also > > doing a > > new bisect on my side. I've given an extra day to move forward. If we > > don't have > > clear statement tonight, then, I will cut the RC3 tonight or tomorrow > > morning > > (my time). > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 08/05/2017 02:37 AM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > > > I did some more investigation on that JIRA > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2671 and my conclusion is: > > > > > > We need to postpone that JIRA to 2.2.0 and finalize release 2.1.0 > as-is. > > > > > > The TL;DR of my investigation is that: > > > - We have some confidence that Spark runner in 2.1.0 generally works > > > properly: it passes ValidatesRunner tests, and there's been some amount > > of > > > manual testing. > > > - Release 2.0.0 does not contain a critical fix and, if I understand > > > correctly, Spark runner at 2.0.0 was basically unusable in streaming > > > cluster mode. > > > - So, even if the JIRA signals that there is something wrong in the > Spark > > > runner at 2.1.0, it's definitely better than 2.0.0 so there is no > > > regression for the user. > > > > > > I moved the JIRA to 2.2.0 so there are no blocking issues remaining for > > > 2.1.0. JB - the next step is for you to proceed with cutting the RC, > > > correct? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:04 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Another quick update. Regarding BEAM-2671, I asked help from Stas and > > >> Aviem on > > >> this one. It's our high priority as it's the main blocking issue > before > > >> cutting RC3. > > >> > > >> At some point, if we are not able to move fast on this one, I would > > >> propose to > > >> cut RC3 as it is. > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> JB > > >> > > >> On 08/02/2017 08:52 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks Eugene for the sumup. > > >>> > > >>> BEAM-2708 is now fixed. > > >>> > > >>> The last blocking issue for RC3 is BEAM-2671. I spent time today on > > this > > >> one, > > >>> investigating the different issues. > > >>> > > >>> Agree that help from Aviem and Kenn would help for sure. > > >>> > > >>> Aviem already started to kindly take a look on the Jira today. > > >>> > > >>> Clearly, it would be great to fix BEAM-2671 in the coming 36 hours. I > > >> would like > > >>> to submit RC3 to vote tomorrow or the day after (my time). > > >>> > > >>> Thanks ! > > >>> Regards > > >>> JB > > >>> > > >>> On 08/02/2017 08:24 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > > >>>> We're down to 2 issues. > > >>>> > > >>>> BEAM-2670 has been fixed. > > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2708 has a fix in review > > >>>> > > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2671 is the nasty one > and > > we > > >>>> don't understand it nor have a fix. Help is needed; some people who > > >> could > > >>>> help are +Kenn Knowles <[email protected]> and +Aviem Zur < > > >> [email protected]> > > >>>> . > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:41 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > [email protected] > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi guys, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We have three open issues for the 2.1.0 that we need to fix before > I > > >> will > > >>>>> be > > >>>>> able to cut RC3: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/BEAM/versions/12340528 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'm working on BEAM-2671. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Any help is welcome for the two other Jiras (BEAM-2587 and > > BEAM-2670). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks ! > > >>>>> Regards > > >>>>> JB > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 07/18/2017 06:30 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version > > >>>>> 2.1.0, 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], > > >>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to > > >> dist.apache.org > > >>>>> [2], > > >>>>>> which is signed with the key with fingerprint C8282E76 [3], > > >>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository > [4], > > >>>>>> * source code tag "v2.1.0-RC2" [5], > > >>>>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API > > >>>>> reference > > >>>>>> manual [6]. > > >>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to > the > > >>>>>> dist.apache.org [2]. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by > > majority > > >>>>> approval, > > >>>>>> with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>> JB > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa? > projectId=12319527&version=12340528 > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.1.0/ > > >>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS > > >>>>>> [4] > > >>>>> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1019/ > > >>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.1.0-RC2 > > >>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/270 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > >>>>> [email protected] > > >>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > > >>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://blog.nanthrax.net > > >> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > [email protected] > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > >
