Ah, thanks for the correction. AfterProcessingTime and AfterCount should both be flagged, as should AfterEvery, and AfterAny. AfterEach is different, since if any of the sequenced triggers never finish, the whole thing will never finish.
Kenn On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:51 PM Zachary Houfek <zhou...@google.com> wrote: > > This was discovered because Repeatedly(AfterProcessingTime(n)) > > Wasn't it Repeatedly(AfterCount(n)) that caused the problem? At least > that's what caused the failing test that prompted the fix. > > With that said, is the concern that AfterProcessingTime *should* include > the CONDITION_NOT_GUARANTEED flag? It isn't right now, so I'm checking. > > Another thing I haven't seen mentioned: `Repeatedly` is or can be used in > other triggers like AfterWatermark (because of the late trigger), > AfterEach, AfterEvery, and AfterAny, so the bug will propagate to those > triggers as well. Two of these actually had to have their tests updated > in the fix > <https://github.com/apache/beam/commit/533a63299789ec8b4bbe629c95734be8dd4d9589#diff-9278a08a4f97eb63d783206bdea1a05377b9edd41646255110446512b8adad43> > . > > Regards, > Zach > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:30 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > wrote: > >> $ git checkout release-2.33.0 >> Switched to branch 'release-2.33.0' >> Your branch is up to date with 'github/release-2.33.0'. >> >> $ python -c 'import apache_beam as beam; >> >> print(beam.transforms.trigger.Repeatedly(beam.transforms.trigger.AfterProcessingTime(5)).may_lose_data(None))' >> DataLossReason.NO_POTENTIAL_LOSS >> >> The MAY_FINISH and CONDITION_NOT_GUARANTEED flags are disjoint. >> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:15 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > This was discovered because Repeatedly(AfterProcessingTime(n)) does >> require the workaround, because AfterProcessingTime(n) does terminate and >> that is propagated by the Repeatedly implementation. >> > >> > Kenn >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:49 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:42 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > True. It is the use case of Repeatedly(ProcessingTime(n)) that I >> would guess to be the primary case of concern. >> >> >> >> This shouldn't require the workaround, right? >> >> >> >> If you're not comfortable with this, I'd say let's patch and re-cut. >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:38 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> As I read the code, it's only pipelines that use a Repeatedly >> trigger >> >> >> that wrap an already lossy trigger that are declared to be >> themselves >> >> >> lossy. If I'm mistaken, I'll certainly reconsider my vote (and >> thanks >> >> >> for bringing this up). >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:21 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > My concern is that the error message is incorrect and every user >> of 2.33.0 may be educated wrong, or be worried about data loss in Beam, or >> fail to find the blog post or CHANGES, etc. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Kenn >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:16 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't know how rare it is, but there is a flag documented in >> CHANGES and blog post that reverts to the old behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:12 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> I guess my vote is -0 since I don't have enough context on this >> issue. A number of people with more awareness of how severe this is have >> voted +1 so I will not try to block the release. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Kenn >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:11 PM Kenneth Knowles < >> k...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> I have to disagree with the other PMC members here, or at >> least dig in to the question: every pipeline that uses a Repeatedly trigger >> at the top level will be rejected. Is this so rare in Python that it is OK? >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> Kenn >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 1:56 PM Robert Burke <r...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> On it. Thanks! >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 1:18 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> Daniel/Robert, feel free to make changes to this PR: >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/15543 >> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:08 PM Daniel Oliveira < >> danolive...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> +1 >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> I hadn't realized the pipelines were still finishing >> successfully. I retried wordcount with that in mind and confirmed it >> finishes successfully, so this isn't a blocker. >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Although maybe we should add this to the "Known Issues" >> because I can easily see those messages being interpreted as a pipeline >> failure. >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 7:26 PM Robert Burke < >> rob...@frantil.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> That's on the SDK side, and it just means the PCollection >> metrics are being returned, buy not handled by the SDK. At present the >> pipeline results only handle PTransform metrics. >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> As such it's not a regression, as adding those is still >> under development. >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 7:02 PM Daniel Oliveira < >> danolive...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I tried validating wordcount with the Go SDK on Flink. >> The pipeline failed with a wall of errors like the following. I tried this >> on Flink 1.11, 1.12, and 1.13 job servers built from source at the RC1 >> commit, same errors on all of them. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2021/09/26 18:21:49 Failed to deduce Step from >> MonitoringInfo: urn:"beam:metric:element_count:v1" >> type:"beam:metrics:sum_int64:v1" payload:"\x8d%" >> labels:{key:"PCOLLECTION" value:"n9"} >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2021/09/26 18:21:49 Failed to deduce Step from >> MonitoringInfo: urn:"beam:metric:element_count:v1" >> type:"beam:metrics:sum_int64:v1" payload:"\x8d%" >> labels:{key:"PCOLLECTION" value:"n10"} >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2021/09/26 18:21:49 Failed to deduce Step from >> MonitoringInfo: urn:"beam:metric:element_count:v1" >> type:"beam:metrics:sum_int64:v1" payload:"\x8d%" >> labels:{key:"PCOLLECTION" value:"n8"} >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2021/09/26 18:21:49 Failed to deduce Step from >> MonitoringInfo: urn:"beam:metric:element_count:v1" >> type:"beam:metrics:sum_int64:v1" payload:"\x8d%" >> labels:{key:"PCOLLECTION" value:"n7"} >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2021/09/26 18:21:49 Failed to deduce Step from >> MonitoringInfo: urn:"beam:metric:sampled_byte_size:v1" >> type:"beam:metrics:distribution_int64:v1" >> payload:"\x8d%\xfa\xbf\x05\x04\xa8\x0c" labels:{key:"PCOLLECTION" >> value:"n7"} >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2021/09/26 18:21:49 Failed to deduce Step from >> MonitoringInfo: urn:"beam:metric:sampled_byte_size:v1" >> type:"beam:metrics:distribution_int64:v1" payload:"\xb9\x05\xcf6\x05\x11" >> labels:{key:"PCOLLECTION" value:"n9"} >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2021/09/26 18:21:49 Failed to deduce Step from >> MonitoringInfo: urn:"beam:metric:sampled_byte_size:v1" >> type:"beam:metrics:distribution_int64:v1" payload:"\xc5\x05\x8a1\x04\x12" >> labels:{key:"PCOLLECTION" value:"n8"} >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2021/09/26 18:21:49 Failed to deduce Step from >> MonitoringInfo: urn:"beam:metric:sampled_byte_size:v1" >> type:"beam:metrics:distribution_int64:v1" >> payload:"\x8d%\xb3\xa7\x07\x14\"" labels:{key:"PCOLLECTION" value:"n10"} >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> {...} >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> @Robert Burke I think you might know what's going on >> here. Is this solvable with a cherry-pick and a new RC? >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:25 PM Ahmet Altay < >> al...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:21 PM Udi Meiri < >> eh...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:18 PM Ahmet Altay < >> al...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the update related to >> allow_unsafe_triggers. My vote is still a +1. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we decide to move forward with this RC, could you >> please include this bug in the known issues list under the changes.md for >> this release? >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's included in >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/15543/files. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you! >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:56 PM Chamikara Jayalath < >> chamik...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (binding) >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Validated a few scenarios from the spreadsheet. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cham >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:07 PM Robert Bradshaw < >> rober...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (binding) >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the artifacts and signatures look good. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the unsafe trigger check is severe >> enough to block the release. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 2:36 PM Udi Meiri < >> eh...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi everyone, we found a bug during testing. It has >> to do with Python SDK's allow_unsafe_triggers check. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is a preliminary fix that will go to master. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > For the 2.33.0 release, I'm leaning towards not >> making a new RC since there is a workaround: pass the flag >> --allow_unsafe_triggers. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Please reevaluate your votes accordingly and >> recast if you've changed your vote. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:48 PM Alexey Romanenko < >> aromanenko....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On 24 Sep 2021, at 20:45, Udi Meiri < >> eh...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Alexey is this something that we should put in >> the release notes, or some other change? >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Yes, I think it could be helpful to mention that >> Beam Jackson’s deps was bumped and it may require an update of Jackson’s >> runtime deps for Spark 2 users as well. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> — >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Alexey >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> — >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Alexey >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> On 24 Sep 2021, at 16:17, Alexey Romanenko < >> aromanenko....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I checked with beam-samples [1] and noticed an >> issue to run some pipelines with Spark 2 runner (Spark 3 seems is ok). >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> It looks that it’s caused by new Jackson's >> version updated recently [2], even if it’s a minor update but it works fine >> with a previous one. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I’ll try to find a workaround and get back with >> a results of this. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> [1] https://github.com/Talend/beam-samples/ >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> [2] >> https://github.com/apache/beam/commit/9694f70df1447e96684b665279679edafec13a0c >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> — >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Alexey >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> On 24 Sep 2021, at 11:17, Jan Lukavský < >> je...@seznam.cz> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> +1 (non-binding) >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Validated several use-cases using non-portable >> Flink with Java SDK. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> On 9/24/21 4:55 AM, Valentyn Tymofieiev wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> +1. Ran several Python batch and streaming >> pipelines on Dataflow and checked that Dataflow containers have required >> dependencies of Beam. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 7:03 PM Robert Burke < >> lostl...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> I validated the Go Quickstart (wordcount), and >> my ray tracer against the Go Direct runner, Dataflow, and Spark (ensuring >> the rc1 tagged container was used) and they executed successfully. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> I needed to manually synthesize a >> pseudo-version to ensure I was using the tagged branch version >> (v2.0.0-20210914211513-b358127f9859) instead of simply using v2.33.0-RC1. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> It either can't find the package with the >> right tagged version, or it can't find the version. It's not clear to me >> what the issue is, but it's not notionally a release blocker. I'll >> investigate further once we have a full release, as it's probably some >> unspecified behavior due to how we transitioned to Go Modules (which >> strongly recommended doing a major version bump for such transitions, which >> seems a bit excessive for Beam as a whole...). >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> On 2021/09/23 03:59:18, Ahmet Altay < >> al...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > +1 on the RC. I validated python quick start >> examples on direct runners. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > Thank you Udi. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 2:20 PM Robert Burke < >> rob...@frantil.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > Just an FYI that intend to validate the Go >> SDK for this release but can't >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > get to it until tomorrow (Thursday). I'm >> catching up from a week of >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > vacation. Apologies for the inconvenience. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021, 10:59 AM Udi Meiri < >> eh...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> I updated the affected and fixed version >> fields for >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-12356. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:48 AM Reuven >> Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> Unfortunate - I didn't realize that >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/15480 >> didn't make the cut. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> This bug was a regression in Beam 2.32.0, >> and is blocking multiple users >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> from updating. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:33 AM Udi >> Meiri <u...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Please review and vote on the release >> candidate #1 for the version >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> 2.33.0, as follows: >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release >> (please provide specific comments) >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Reviewers are encouraged to test their >> own use cases with the release >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> candidate, and vote +1 if >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> no issues are found. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> 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 587B049C36DAAFE6 [3], >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the >> Maven Central Repository [4], >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * source code tag "v2.33.0-RC1" [5], >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * website pull request listing the >> release [6], the blog post [6], and >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> publishing the API reference manual [7]. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * Java artifacts were built with Maven >> 3.6.3 and OpenJDK 1.8.0_181. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along >> with the source release to the >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> dist.apache.org [2] and pypy[8]. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.33.0 >> 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. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> For guidelines on how to try the release >> in your projects, check out >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> our blog post at >> https://beam.apache.org/blog/validate-beam-release/. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Thanks, >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> Release Manager >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [1] >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12350404 >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [2] >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.33.0/ >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [3] >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [4] >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1234/ >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [5] >> https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.33.0-RC1 >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [6] >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/15543 >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [7] >> https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/619 >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [8] >> https://pypi.org/project/apache-beam/2.33.0rc1/ >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [9] >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1705275493 >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> [10] >> https://hub.docker.com/search?q=apache%2Fbeam&type=image >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > -- > > Zachary Houfek > > Software Engineer > > DataPLS PLAT > > zhou...@google.com >
