+1

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:02 AM Thomas Weise <[email protected]> wrote:

> +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>
>> > >
>>
>

Reply via email to