Please note https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11777 - another bug we found while trying to upgrade to 2.21
Other than that things look good. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:14 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > +1 (again, validated with new whl files.) > > What about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015? Is this a > blocker? > > +Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> +Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> -- since > you are both tagged on the JIRA. > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com> wrote: > >> > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>
