To Davor, JB and anyone else helping with the release, Thanks! this looks great.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:11 PM Amit Sela <amitsel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding Dan's questions: > 1. I'm not sure - it is built with spark-*_2.10 but I honestly don't know > if this matters for the runner itself, it could be nice to have in order to > be more informative. In addition, this will change with Spark 2.0 to Scala > 2.11 AFAIK. > 2. This is to allow running out-of-the-box examples I guess. The Flink > runner just tells you how to do it on your own here: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/master/runners/flink > Would you say this is a better approach ? > > In any case, packaging is necessary to run on cluster and the shading > rules are there for Guava - Beam/Hadoop.. > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:14 PM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I like the compromise on the Maven naming scheme. Thanks for >> incorporating all the feedback! >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> > Hi Taylor, >> > >> > Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on >> > repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org >> only when >> > the vote passed. >> > >> > Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will >> > document) is: >> > - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform >> > - Close repo >> > - Start vote >> > - If passed, forward vote to incubator >> > - If passed, close repo >> > - Upload distro to dist >> > - Announce the release (mailing lists, website) >> > >> > It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc. >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > >> > On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: >> >> >> >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on >> >> repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o? >> >> >> >> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven >> >> artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source >> archives and >> >> convenience binaries). >> >> >> >> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process. >> >> >> >> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote. >> >> >> >> -Taylor >> >> >> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci <da...@google.com.INVALID> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi everyone! >> >>> We've started the release process for our first release, >> >>> 0.1.0-incubating. >> >>> >> >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional >> goals >> >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's >> currently >> >>> in >> >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process. >> >>> >> >>> With this in mind, we've: >> >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272, >> >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating, >> >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging >> >>> repository [2]. >> >>> >> >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified >> a >> >>> few >> >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a >> >>> peek >> >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible >> before >> >>> we >> >>> start the voting process. >> >>> >> >>> Please let us know if you see any issues. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Davor >> >>> >> >>> [1] >> >>> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating >> >>> [2] >> >>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/ >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > jbono...@apache.org >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >
