Thanks all for voting. The vote has passed with 7 +1 votes (6 binding) and
no -1 votes. I'll complete the remaining work and finalize the release.

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:03 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is this vote already closed and the artifacts published?
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:03 PM Connell O'Callaghan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > +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>
> >>> > >
>


-- 




Got feedback? tinyurl.com/swegner-feedback

Reply via email to