The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release pick up anything that isn't critical.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts, > rather than have so many manual steps... > > The new set of wheels look good now. Verified all the hashes and > signatures and source tarball contents as well. Ran a couple of test > pipelines. > > I noticed https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11722 was just merged. Are > we OK excluding that? Other than that looks good. > > +1 (binding) pending the one question above. > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:49 AM Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com> wrote: > >> Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part >> of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up >> to date now, PTAL. >> >> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. >>> >>> Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after some >>> cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging are >>> up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on >>> dist.apache.org properly, which I assume we expect the Travis build to >>> do. I might have to copy over the new wheels myself. >>> >>> > Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as >>> > part of the next RC, no? >>> >>> At this point, there is no need to go to a full second RC. If there turn >>> out to be blocking issues with RC #1 that necessitate RC #2, we can >>> consider including BEAM-9887 then. >>> >>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:41 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as >>>> part of the next RC, no? >>>> It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have. >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g. >>>> > >>>> > unzip -p >>>> apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl >>>> apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40 >>>> > >>>> > notice the missing "import bisect" (among other things) missing from >>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.21.0/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py >>>> . >>>> > >>>> > (I do agree that BEAM-9887 isn't severe enough to hold up the release >>>> at this point.) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:48 PM rahul patwari < >>>> rahulpatwari8...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi Luke, >>>> >> >>>> >> The release is not severely broken without PR #11609. >>>> >> The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the >>>> input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with >>>> length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of >>>> length 10. But, without this PR, for FixedBytes logical type, the Row will >>>> be built with input value with length less than the expected length. >>>> >> But, as long as the input value provided is correct, there shouldn't >>>> be any problems. >>>> >> I will change the fix version as 2.22.0 for BEAM-9887. >>>> >> >>>> >> Regards, >>>> >> Rahul >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without >>>> PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till >>>> 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari < >>>> rahulpatwari8...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be >>>> cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release? >>>> >>>> If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Rahul >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> +1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang < >>>> hannahji...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java >>>> and Python docker images as expected. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to >>>> vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz < >>>> sniem...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked >>>> as 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the >>>> implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data. >>>> Is this a blocker? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> +Reuven Lax, would this be a release blocker? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver < >>>> kcwea...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the >>>> version 2.21.0, 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 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint >>>> F11E37D7F006D086232876797B6D6673C79AEA72 [3], >>>> >>>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central >>>> Repository [4], >>>> >>>>>>>>> * source code tag "v2.21.0-RC1" [5], >>>> >>>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6], publishing >>>> the API reference manual [7], and the blog post [8]. >>>> >>>>>>>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven 3.6.3 and >>>> OpenJDK/Oracle JDK 1.8.0. >>>> >>>>>>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release >>>> to the dist.apache.org [2]. >>>> >>>>>>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.21.0 release to help with >>>> validation [9]. >>>> >>>>>>>>> * Docker images published to Docker Hub [10]. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by >>>> majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>>>>>>> Kyle >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12347143 >>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.21.0/ >>>> >>>>>>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS >>>> >>>>>>>>> [4] >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1103/ >>>> >>>>>>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/releases/tag/v2.21.0-RC1 >>>> >>>>>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11727 >>>> >>>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/603 >>>> >>>>>>>>> [8] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11729 >>>> >>>>>>>>> [9] >>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=275707202 >>>> >>>>>>>>> [10] https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image >>>> >>>
