Thanks for attempting to include BEAM-3409 Robert. I agree that if the fix
was proving difficult to merge, it's better to not block the release on it.
This is not a regression - merely annoying behavior in the direct runner.
As far as I can tell, the bug should only affect the case where two tests
reuse each other's resources (as the resources are currently not guaranteed
to be cleaned up between tests). I believe that most tests do not fall in
this category.

I would like to see this fixed for the next version though (possibly even
in a point release).


On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:25 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:01 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> -1 (non binding). As mentionned in the thread about this release, until
>> BEAM-3409 is fixed the pipeline API is not really reliable and requires
>> workarounds to be used by any user. This is really a blocker overdue since1
>> or 2 releases IMHO and should has been fixed end of last year already.
>>
>
> I made a good effort to get BEAM-3409 in, waiting on cutting the release
> and pinging reviewers. Once it was in I wasted too much time trying to fix
> the compile errors it introduced, finally realizing that this was going to
> be non-trivial and cherry-picking the rollback that was on master was a
> much more appropriate situation for the release branch. Consensus on the
> thread seemed to be that this was nice to have, but neither a regression
> nor a real blocker for a release.
>
> On the other hand, if we keep the good cadence up, a release that does
> actually address this shouldn't be far behind as long as a compatible fix
> gets into master in a timely manner.
>
> Did you notice anything else?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>> 2018-03-07 9:50 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>:
>>
>>> For the record, the vote e-mail doesn't contain actual MAVEN_VERSION and
>>> JDK_VERSION used to build.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 03/07/2018 09:44 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> > Hi everyone,
>>> >
>>> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version
>>> 2.4.0,
>>> > 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 BDC9 89B0 1BD2 A463 6010
>>> >   A1CA 8F15 5E09 610D 69FB [3],
>>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> > * source code tag "v2.4.0-RC1" [5],
>>> > * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>>> reference
>>> > manual [6].
>>> > * Java artifacts were built with Maven MAVEN_VERSION and
>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK
>>> > JDK_VERSION.
>>> > * 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,
>>> > - Robert
>>> >
>>> > [1]
>>> >
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12342682&projectId=12319527
>>> > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.4.0/
>>> > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/KEYS
>>> > [4]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1028/
>>> > [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.4.0-RC1
>>> > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/398
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbono...@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>
>>

Reply via email to