Hi Amit,
thanks for the update. Davor is updating a new RC to fix the source
distribution issue.
Stay tuned !
Regards
JB
On 06/08/2016 08:12 PM, Amit Sela wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
