+1
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 5:00 AM Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > +1, let's get this out. > > We can decide about 2.9.1 later. > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:43 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > On 20.12.18 23:11, Tyler Akidau wrote: > > > +1, Approve the release. > > > > > > -Tyler > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:49 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > I meant BEAM-6249 in my last sentence. It should read: "BEAM-6249 > has a > > > comment about user building the libraries themselves, I am not > sure if they > > > are using the release 2.9 version directly or not." > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:48 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > I don't think there is a need for a hotfix release. The reason > the > > > initial vendoring PR (https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7024) > that > > > started the issue was not cherry picked to the release branch. > BEAM-6056 > > > has a comment about user building the libraries themselves, I > am not > > > sure if they are using the release 2.9 version directly or not. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:37 AM Kenneth Knowles < > [email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > I don't know yet about 2.9.1. There's a bit more context > on BEAM-6249. > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6249 > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:02 PM Scott Wegner < > [email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > Releasing new vendored artifacts won't generally imply > a full > > > Beam release. The plan is to pick up the new artifact > version at > > > HEAD which will roll into the next release. > > > > > > For this particularly case, the question is if the > Dataflow > > > issue that this fixes (BEAM-6056) warrants a hotfix > release > > > (2.9.1). I don't know the answer-- Ahmet/Kenn do you > have any > > > thoughts? > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:18 AM Ismaël Mejía < > [email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > Does this imply that we need a subsequent full > release > > > afterwards? > > > I am assuming this new release is related to the > reported > > > issues with > > > the dataflow worker or is this something different? > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:51 AM Kenneth Knowles > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > - sigs good > > > > - `jar tf` looks good > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:54 PM Scott Wegner > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Please review and vote on the release > candidate #1 for > > > the vendored artifact gRPC 1.13.1 v0.2 > > > >> [ ] +1, Approve the release > > > >> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please > provide > > > specific comments) > > > >> > > > >> This is a follow-up to the previous thread > about > > > vendoring updates [1] > > > >> > > > >> The complete staging area is available for > your review, > > > which includes: > > > >> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven > Central > > > Repository [2], > > > >> * commit hash > "3b8abca3ca3352e6bf20e059f17324049a2eae0a" > > > [3], > > > >> * artifacts which are signed with the key with > fingerprint > > > >> 5F47BD54C52008007288FF4D3593BA6C25ABF71F [4] > > > >> > > > >> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > It is > > > adopted by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC > > > affirmative votes. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Scott > > > >> > > > >> [1] > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9a55d12000cb3b1b61620b7dc4009d1351e6b8c70951f70aeb358583@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E > > > >> [2] > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1055/ > > > >> [3] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7328 > > > >> [4] > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback > > > <http://tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback > > > <https://tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback> > > > >
