Just discovered a potentially serious issue that was present during this RC: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7493. So far I have not discovered a truly user-facing impact, and example validation succeeded, but I wanted to alert the list.
Summary: When rendering a published pom.xml the dependencies are always the path concatenated with dashes even when that is not the correct artifactId. For example sdks/java/testing/test-utils are resolved in the pom to beam-sdks-java-testing-test-utils. This does not exist; it manually sets the name to beam-sdks-java-test-utils, omitting the extraneous `testing` directory that exists only for taxonomy. There are a few other modules that manually set their archive name. From what I can tell, each of these is either (a) not published or (b) not depended upon. I am still checking. Kenn On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:22 AM Thomas Weise <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 and I think all of that can be covered with JIRA. > > Irrespective the release manager still needs to pay attention to the > communication on the VOTE thread. > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:19 AM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Checking that JIRA link sounds reasonable as long as we can agree that it >> is single source of truth for cherry pick requests. I also agree with Cham, >> requests need to come with a reason. >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:38 AM Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't think we need anything fancier or marking even as Blocker some >>> of this stuff, would not be enough just to monitor that [1] has no >>> issues? (of course if the interested party has not put the fix version >>> to the current ongoing vote one this is a mistake). >>> >>> [1] >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.13.0 >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:23 PM Chamikara Jayalath <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:02 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I would suggest have a single way of tracking cherry pick request to >>> an RC. Currently we use emails on the RC thread, open PRs, and Jiras tagged >>> for the release. This is confusing the person doing the release while they >>> are juggling multiple things. How about we ask all cherry pick requests to >>> have a JIRA filed against that release and marked as blockers? >>> > >>> > >>> > I agree with this and with what Ankur said. Release blockers should be >>> more explicit and should come with a reason. After voting thread start, I >>> would say this should include a mail to the voting thread as well as a >>> blocking JIRA. Other PRs opened against the branch may or may not get >>> merged at the discretion of the release manager. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Cham >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ankur Goenka <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> That makes sense. >>> >>> I would also like to add that the corresponding PR should be added >>> to an open blocking Jira for the release to keep a single source to check. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:15 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I would actually suggest that the following search needs to be >>> triaged to zero before cutting an RC: >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+base%3Arelease-2.13.0 >>> . >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:17 AM Ankur Goenka <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Sorry, I missed the comment for not including weekend's to 72 >>> hours voting period. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I meant to update the blog post >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8667/files once we have finalized >>> the RC so that it can be consistent. Please add any comments to PR and I >>> can incorporate them. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> As we did not go for 3rd RC and >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was not blocking the 2.13 >>> release, I went with the release. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can >>> not do another RC for 2.13.0. >>> >>>>> If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix >>> release 2.13.1. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> This seems a rushed and things fall through the cracks. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Max had requested to not include the weekend into the voting >>> period. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Valentyn: I had the same question on the first RC. The PR should >>> be included into the vote for review. You can find it here: >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8667/files >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC: >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 - It's not blocking but would >>> be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this branch. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>> >>>>>> Thomas >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> The summary is not correct. Binding votes (in order): >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ahmet Altay >>> >>>>>>> Robert Bradshaw >>> >>>>>>> Maximilian Michels >>> >>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> >>>>>>> Lukasz Cwik >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> A total of 5 binding votes. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On 04.06.19 02:37, Ankur Goenka wrote: >>> >>>>>>> > +1 >>> >>>>>>> > Thanks for validating the release and voting. >>> >>>>>>> > With 0(-1), 6(+1) and 3(+1 binding) votes, I am concluding the >>> voting >>> >>>>>>> > process. >>> >>>>>>> > I am going ahead with the release and will keep the community >>> posted >>> >>>>>>> > with the updates. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:57 PM Andrew Pilloud < >>> [email protected] >>> >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > +1 Reviewed the Nexmark java and SQL perfkit graphs, no >>> obvious >>> >>>>>>> > regressions over the previous release. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:15 PM Lukasz Cwik < >>> [email protected] >>> >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Thanks for the clarification. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:40 AM Ankur Goenka < >>> [email protected] >>> >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Yes, i meant i will close the voting at 5pm and >>> start the >>> >>>>>>> > release process. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 10:59 AM Lukasz Cwik < >>> [email protected] >>> >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Ankur, did you mean to say your going to close >>> the vote >>> >>>>>>> > today at 5pm? (and then complete the release >>> afterwards) >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:54 AM Ankur Goenka >>> >>>>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Thanks for validating and voting. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > We have 4 binding votes. >>> >>>>>>> > I will complete the release today 5PM. >>> Please raise >>> >>>>>>> > any concerns before that. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Thanks, >>> >>>>>>> > Ankur >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:36 AM Lukasz Cwik >>> >>>>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Since the gearpump issue has been >>> ongoing since >>> >>>>>>> > 2.10, I can't consider it a blocker >>> for this >>> >>>>>>> > release and am voting +1. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:13 AM >>> Jean-Baptiste >>> >>>>>>> > Onofré <[email protected] >>> >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > +1 (binding) >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Quickly tested on beam-samples. >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > Regards >>> >>>>>>> > JB >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > On 31/05/2019 04:52, Ankur Goenka >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> > > Hi everyone, >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > Please review and vote on the >>> release >>> >>>>>>> > candidate #2 for the version >>> >>>>>>> > > 2.13.0, as follows: >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > [ ] +1, Approve the release >>> >>>>>>> > > [ ] -1, Do not approve the >>> release >>> >>>>>>> > (please provide specific comments) >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > The complete staging area is >>> available >>> >>>>>>> > for your review, which includes: >>> >>>>>>> > > * JIRA release notes [1], >>> >>>>>>> > > * the official Apache source >>> release to >>> >>>>>>> > be deployed to dist.apache.org >>> >>>>>>> > <http://dist.apache.org> >>> >>>>>>> > > <http://dist.apache.org> [2], >>> which is >>> >>>>>>> > signed with the key with >>> >>>>>>> > > fingerprint >>> >>>>>>> > >>> 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3], >>> >>>>>>> > > * all artifacts to be deployed >>> to the >>> >>>>>>> > Maven Central Repository [4], >>> >>>>>>> > > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" >>> [5], >>> >>>>>>> > > * website pull request listing >>> the >>> >>>>>>> > release [6] and publishing the API >>> >>>>>>> > > reference manual [7]. >>> >>>>>>> > > * Python artifacts are deployed >>> along >>> >>>>>>> > with the source release to the >>> >>>>>>> > > dist.apache.org < >>> http://dist.apache.org> >>> >>>>>>> > <http://dist.apache.org> [2]. >>> >>>>>>> > > * Validation sheet with a tab >>> for 2.13.0 >>> >>>>>>> > release to help with validation >>> >>>>>>> > > [8]. >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > The vote will be open for at >>> least 72 >>> >>>>>>> > hours. It is adopted by majority >>> >>>>>>> > > approval, with at least 3 PMC >>> affirmative >>> >>>>>>> > votes. >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > Thanks, >>> >>>>>>> > > Ankur >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > > [1] >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12345166 >>> >>>>>>> > > [2] >>> >>>>>>> > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/ >>> >>>>>>> > > [3] >>> >>>>>>> > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS >>> >>>>>>> > > [4] >>> >>>>>>> > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/ >>> >>>>>>> > > [5] >>> >>>>>>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2 >>> >>>>>>> > > [6] >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645 >>> >>>>>>> > > [7] >>> >>>>>>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589 >>> >>>>>>> > > [8] >>> >>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952 >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > -- >>> >>>>>>> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> >>>>>>> > [email protected] <mailto: >>> [email protected]> >>> >>>>>>> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> >>>>>>> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>
