Given no LTS activity for 2.7.x - do we really need it?
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:54 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > After looking at the dates it seems that 2.12 should be the next LTS > since it will be exactly 6 months after the release of 2.7.0. Anyone > has comments, or prefer to do the LTS better for the next version > (2.13) ? > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:13 PM Michael Luckey <adude3...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > @mxm > > > > Sure we should. Unfortunately the scripts to not have any '--dry-run' > toggle. Implementing this seemed not too easy on first sight, as those > release scripts do assume committed outputs of their predecessors and are > not yet in the shape to be parameterised. > > > > So here is what I did: > > 1. As I did not wanted the scripts to do 'sudo' installs on my machine, > I first created a docker image with required prerequisites. > > 2. Cloned beam to that machine (to get the release.scripts) > > 3. Edited the places which seemed to call to the outside > > - disabled any git push > > - changed git url to point to some copy on local filesystem to pull > required changes from there > > - changed './gradlew' build to './gradlew assemble' as build will > not work on docker anyway > > - changed publish to publishToMavenLocal > > - probably some more changes to ensure I do not write to remote > > 4. run the scripts > > > > What I missed out: > > 1. There is some communication with svn (signing artefacts downloaded > from svn and committing). I just skipped those steps, as I was just too > scared to miss some commit and doing an accidental push to some remote > system (where I am hopefully not authorised anyway without doing proper > authentication) > > > > If you believe I missed something which could be tested in advance, I d > happily do more testing to ensure a smooth release process. > > > > michel > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:23 AM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Andrew, > >> > >> Sounds good. Thank you for being the release manager. > >> > >> @Michael Shall we perform some dry-run release testing for ensuring > >> Gradle 5 compatibility? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Max > >> > >> On 14.03.19 00:28, Michael Luckey wrote: > >> > Sounds good. Thanks for volunteering. > >> > > >> > Just as a side note: @aaltay had trouble releasing caused by the > switch > >> > to gradle5. Although that should be fixed now, you will be the first > >> > using those changes in production. So if you encounter any issues. do > >> > not hesitate to blame and contact me. Also I am currently looking into > >> > some improvements to the process suggested by @kenn. So your feedback > on > >> > the current state would be greatly appreciated. I hope to get at least > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6798 done until then. > >> > > >> > Thanks again, > >> > > >> > michel > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:13 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com > >> > <mailto:al...@google.com>> wrote: > >> > > >> > Sounds great, thank you! > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:09 PM Andrew Pilloud < > apill...@google.com > >> > <mailto:apill...@google.com>> wrote: > >> > > >> > Hello Beam community! > >> > > >> > Beam 2.12 release branch cut date is March 27th according to > the > >> > release calendar [1]. I would like to volunteer myself to do > >> > this release. I intend to cut the branch as planned on March > >> > 27th and cherrypick fixes if needed. > >> > > >> > If you have releasing blocking issues for 2.12 please mark > their > >> > "Fix Version" as 2.12.0. Kenn created a 2.13.0 release in JIRA > >> > in case you would like to move any non-blocking issues to that > >> > version. > >> > > >> > Does this sound reasonable? > >> > > >> > Andrew > >> > > >> > [1] > >> > > https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=0p73sl034k80oob7seouanigd0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America%2FLos_Angeles > >> > >
