> We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts, rather than have so many manual steps...
Agreed. Luckily building wheels is one of only a couple steps that aren't automated yet. Partially related: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:55 PM Luke Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>
