On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> Got it. But don't forget there is a release guide and some manual validation 
> to perform. A Apache release is not just a script to run, as a release 
> manager, you are also responsible of the verification (legal, artifacts, etc).

Anything and everything that can be done by a script should be done by
a script, such that we humans can focus on the things that only we can
do. The release guide should not be a series of commands that must be
run exactly in order (with implicit dependencies like silently
producing bad artifacts if run from a non-pristine client).

> Regards
> JB
>
> On Nov 3, 2017, 17:45, at 17:45, Reuven Lax <re...@google.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>What I meant is that there are many manual commands today, which makes
>>the
>>process more prone to human error at a number of points. I don't think
>>we
>>need to change the release process, I simply want to script it so that
>>the
>>release owner has to run fewer commands.
>>
>>On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> If the tag is ok, updated artifacts require a new staging repository.
>>So
>>> it means the vote email is obsolete.
>>>
>>> I would cut a clean new rc3 and start a new vote.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2017, 16:30, at 16:30, Reuven Lax
>><re...@google.com.INVALID>
>>> wrote:
>>> >Thanks for catching this.
>>> >
>>> >Do we need new artifacts? Looks like we might just need a new source
>>> >drop.
>>> >
>>> >On Nov 3, 2017 11:27 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <j...@nanthrax.net>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Probably the cleanup (git clean -x) has not be done before cutting
>>> >the
>>> >> release.
>>> >>
>>> >> I would ask a new rc to fix the provided artifacts.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards
>>> >> JB
>>> >>
>>> >> On Nov 3, 2017, 15:46, at 15:46, "Ismaël Mejía"
>><ieme...@gmail.com>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >> >I found some issues during the vote validation (not sure if those
>>> >> >would require a new vote since most seem to be packaging related
>>and
>>> >> >we can get with it by removing the extra stuff that ended up in
>>the
>>> >> >zip files):
>>> >> >
>>> >> >1. I inspected the apache-beam-2.2.0-source-release.zip file and
>>was
>>> >a
>>> >> >bit surprised to notice that it was twice the size of the one for
>>> >the
>>> >> >2.1.0 vote, then I discovered that the sdks/python/,eggs
>>directory
>>> >was
>>> >> >part of the 2.2.0 zip file (I suppose this is an issue).
>>> >> >
>>> >> >2. There are some directories/files that appear in the zip file
>>that
>>> >> >don't exist in the 2.2.0-rc2 git tag:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >2.1.1/
>>> >> >foo/
>>> >> >model/
>>> >> >sdks/python/README.md
>>> >> >
>>> >> >3. Then I run the rat validation and it broke because some files
>>> >don't
>>> >> >have the correct (I suppose these are generated files that should
>>> >not
>>> >> >be part of the final distribution). This is a part of the release
>>> >> >process that we have done manually and that has bitten us in the
>>> >> >latest two releases.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >[WARNING] Files with unapproved licenses:
>>> >> >
>>> >sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_runner_api_pb2_grpc.py
>>> >> >
>>sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/standard_window_fns_pb2.py
>>> >> >  sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_job_api_pb2.py
>>> >> >  sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/endpoints_pb2.py
>>> >> >
>>>
>>>sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_artifact_api_pb2_grpc.py
>>> >> >
>>sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_artifact_api_pb2.py
>>> >> >  sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_fn_api_pb2_grpc.py
>>> >> >  sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_fn_api_pb2.py
>>> >> >  sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_runner_api_pb2.py
>>> >> >
>>sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_provision_api_pb2.py
>>> >> >
>>sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_job_api_pb2_grpc.py
>>> >> >  sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/endpoints_pb2_grpc.py
>>> >> >
>>>
>>>sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/beam_provision_api_pb2_grpc.py
>>> >>
>>>
>>>>sdks/python/apache_beam/portability/api/standard_window_fns_pb2_grpc.py
>>> >> >
>>> >> >On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Reuven Lax
>>> ><re...@google.com.invalid>
>>> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >> Hi everyone,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the
>>version
>>> >> >2.2.0,
>>> >> >> 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 B98B7708
>>[3],
>>> >> >>   * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>>Repository
>>> >[4],
>>> >> >>   * source code tag "v2.2.0-RC2" [5],
>>> >> >>   * website pull request listing the release and publishing the
>>> >API
>>> >> >> reference manual [6].
>>> >> >>   * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.5.0 and
>>OpenJDK/Oracle
>>> >JDK
>>> >> >> 1.8.0_144.
>>> >> >>   * 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,
>>> >> >> Reuven
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [1]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
>>> >> projectId=12319527&version=12341044
>>> >> >> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.2.0/
>>> >> >> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> >> >> [4]
>>> >>
>>>
>>>>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1022/
>>> >> >> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.2.0-RC2
>>> >> >> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/337
>>> >>
>>>

Reply via email to