Thanks for the update JB. Kenn, we have the post commit integration tests which run against shaded artifacts like validates runner. We also have the nightly snapshot and its verification run which validates the nightly snapshot with DirectRunner / Dataflow / Apex / Spark / Flink for WordCount and DirectRunner / Dataflow for the mobile gaming examples.
I'm not sure about the IOs and whether the perfkit benchmark work adequately covers them. On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 1:28 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Luke, > > I tested the following build: > > ./gradlew publishToMavenLocal -PisRelease --no-parallel > > The artifacts are present in my .m2/repository. > > For instance, I can see: > > .m2/repository/org/apache/beam/beam-sdks-java-core/2.5.0$ ls -l > total 16256 > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.jar > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.jar.asc > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-javadoc.jar > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-javadoc.jar.asc > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.pom > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.pom.asc > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-sources.jar > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-sources.jar.asc > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-tests.jar > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-tests.jar.asc > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-test-sources.jar > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-test-sources.jar.asc > > 1. The signatures are OK: > > gpg --verify beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.jar.asc > beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.jar > gpg: Signature made jeu. 24 mai 2018 16:55:11 CEST > gpg: using RSA key 1AA8CF92D409A73393D0B736BFF2EE42C8282E76 > gpg: Good signature from "Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jbono...@apache.org>" > [unknown] > > 2. The pom looks correct to me but it's not optimal because > > 2.1. There's no parent definition, so each pom duplicate the same > configurations (like scm, license, etc) > 2.2. There's no Maven plugin configuration, even if it's not used for > the build, other tools can parse and use plugin configuration (like the > source/target version, etc). > > So, even if it's not optimal, the pom looks overall good. > > I think it makes sense to move forward on the release as it is right now. > > If there's no objection, I will start the release process during the > week end. > > By the way, it would be good to verify that the Maven build is still > working. Ismaël and I fixed new issues on the Maven build. > At some point, after the 2.5.0 release, we have to state to remove the > Maven build (after a vote ;)). > > Thanks, > Regards > JB > > > On 25/05/2018 01:34, Lukasz Cwik wrote: > > The license inclusion issue that was brought up on the thread has been > > resolved https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4393. > > > > JB, you find any other release related issues? > > > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:33 AM Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com > > <mailto:lc...@google.com>> wrote: > > > > I believe JB is referring > > to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4060 > > > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:16 AM Scott Wegner <sweg...@google.com > > <mailto:sweg...@google.com>> wrote: > > > > J.B., can you give any context on what metadata is missing? Is > > there a JIRA? > > > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:30 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > <j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The build was OK yesterday but the maven-metadata is still > > missing. > > > > That's the point to fix before being able to move forward > > on the release. > > > > I gonna tackle this later today. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 05/18/2018 02:41 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: > > > Hi JB and all, > > > > > > I wanted to follow up on my previous email. The python > > streaming issue I > > > mentioned is resolved and removed from the blocker list. > > Blocker list is empty > > > now. You can go ahead with the release branch cut when you > > are ready. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Ahmet > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > <j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net> > > > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > just to let you know that the build fully passed on my > > box. > > > > > > I'm testing the artifacts right now. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > -- > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
