Romain, could you please open a JIRA describing the requirements for the generated pom's? The gradle-generated pom's don't match the maven version byte-for-byte, but I don't think that's a requirement.
I and others are still hacking on the Gradle build, so it's possible we could get the pom's ready within 2 weeks. It would be good to understand the specific requirements for the generated pom's such that we don't break consumers. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:14 AM Etienne Chauchot <echauc...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 to what Ahmet said, I also think that it is important to take our time > given that we're in the gradle migration process. > +1 to what JB said also: try gradle and fall back to maven in case of > troubles. > > Etienne > > Le mercredi 11 avril 2018 à 13:35 -0700, Ahmet Altay a écrit : > > +1 to delaying 2 weeks. > > I think it will be prudent to wait in this case. There is too much in flux > with Gradle migration currently and based on Scott's latest update I think > we will be in a more stable state in 2 weeks. Last Beam release date was > 3/20 and our plan was to make a release every 6 weeks. Even if we start > cutting a release in 2 weeks (~4/26), we will have more than a week to > finish that release. Even if that is not enough time to finish a release it > will put is in the proximity of the 5/5 target date. I prefer that option, > to another potential release with Maven. > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > Any hope the release is on central before the 30th? > > > I do not think this was the plan to begin with. The time between the > previous release and 4/30 is less than 6 weeks. > > > > Le 11 avr. 2018 22:02, "Robert Bradshaw" <rober...@google.com> a écrit : > > +1 to keeping up the regular release cycle, but I don't think it makes > sense to cut until we're ready to actively work on the release. A cut date > two weeks from now seems fine (unless someone else is volunteering to do it > this time around). > > That being said, a dry run using gradle now may make a lot of sense, > giving us a couple of weeks to iron out the kinks, if any. > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:58 PM Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> > wrote: > > Hi JB, > > Please note that I opened a blocker  (working on it) and looks like we > have several other JIRAs marked for 2.5.0. So +1 for waiting for two weeks > (or till JIRAs are resolved or moved off the list). > > Thanks, > Cham > >  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3991 >  > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.5.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:28 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > Hi guys, > > Due to the last work, I think it makes sense to try a release using > Gradle. If it doesn't work smoothly, we will rollback to Maven, and > maybe in that case, we should ask ourselves if Gradle is really a good > alternative for now. > > I'm in vacation tomorrow morning for 2 weeks. I can cut the release > tomorrow end of the morning (my time). But in the case we need some > additional PR merges or we have some work in progress, I'm proposing to > postpone 2.5.0 release for the end of this month (in two weeks). If > someone is volunteer to tackle this release, please, let us know. > > Regards > JB > > On 06/04/2018 10:48, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > Apache Beam 2.4.0 has been released on March 20th. > > > > According to our cycle of release (roughly 6 weeks), we should think > about 2.5.0. > > > > I'm volunteer to tackle this release. > > > > I'm proposing the following items: > > > > 1. We start the Jira triage now, up to Tuesday > > 2. I would like to cut the release on Tuesday night (Europe time) > > 2bis. I think it's wiser to still use Maven for this release. Do you > think we > > will be ready to try a release with Gradle ? > > > > After this release, I would like a discussion about: > > 1. Gradle release (if we release 2.5.0 with Maven) > > 2. Isolate release cycle per Beam part. I think it would be interesting > to have > > different release cycle: SDKs, DSLs, Runners, IOs. That's another > discussion, I > > will start a thread about that. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > > > -- Got feedback? http://go/swegner-feedback