+1 Thanks for volunteering and keeping us in schedule!



On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 at 11:58, Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:33 PM Boyuan Zhang <boyu...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>> Thanks for volunteering, Charles!
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:22 PM Rafael Fernandez <rfern...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1, thanks for volunteering, Charles!
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:09 PM Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Andrew for pointing out my mistake.  We should follow the
>>>> calendar and aim to cut on 8/29, not 9/7 as I incorrectly wrote earlier.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:02 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 Thanks for volunteering! The calendar I have puts the cut date at
>>>>> August 29th, which looks to be 6 weeks from when 2.6.0 was cut. Do I have
>>>>> the wrong calendar?
>>>>>
>>>>> See:
>>>>> https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=0p73sl034k80oob7seouanigd0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:43 AM Connell O'Callaghan <
>>>>> conne...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 Charles thank you for taking this up and helping us maintain this
>>>>>> schedule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 11:29 AM Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our release calendar indicates that the process for the 2.7.0 Beam
>>>>>>> release should start on September 7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I volunteer to perform this release and propose the following
>>>>>>> schedule:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    - We start triaging issues in JIRA this week.
>>>>>>>    - I will cut the initial 2.7.0 release branch on September 7.
>>>>>>>    - After September 7, any blockers will need to be manually
>>>>>>>    cherry-picked into the release branch.
>>>>>>>    - After tests pass and blockers are fully addressed, I will move
>>>>>>>    on and perform other release tasks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Reply via email to