+1 - verified signatures - ran Quickstart using the staging repository on Flink cluster - verified build form source
(We'll probably do a 0.5.0 release shortly after this so we can fix the BigQuery issues.) On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 at 21:22 Dan Halperin <[email protected]> wrote: > I vetted the binary artifacts accompanying the release by running several > jobs on the Dataflow and Direct runners. At a high level, the release looks > fine -- I ran some of my favorite jobs and they all worked swimmingly. > > There are some severe bugs in BigQueryIO in the release. Specifically, we > broke the ability to write to BigQuery using different tables for every > window. To a large degree, this makes BigQuery useless when working with > unbounded data (streaming pipelines). The bugs have been fixed (and > accompanying tests added) in PRs #1651 and #1400. > > Conclusion: +0.8 > > * 0.4.0-incubating RC3 is largely an improvement over 0.3.0-incubating, > especially in the user getting started experience. > * The bugs in BigQueryIO are blockers for BigQuery users, but this is > likely a relatively small fraction of the Beam community. I would not > retract RC3 based on this alone. Unless we plan to cut an RC4 for other > reasons, we should move forward with RC3. > > I'd hope that we hear from key users of the Apex, Flink, and Spark runners > before closing the vote, even though it's technically been 72+ hours. I > suggest we wait to ensure they have an opportunity to chime in. > > Thanks, > Dan > > > Appendix: pom.xml changes to use binary releases from Apache Staging: > > <repositories> > <repository> > <id>apache.staging</id> > <name>Apache Development Staging Repository</name> > <url>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/ > </url> > <releases> > <enabled>true</enabled> > </releases> > <snapshots> > <enabled>false</enabled> > </snapshots> > </repository> > </repositories> > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > The good thing is that my issue to access repository.apache.org Nexus is > > now fixed. > > > > To update the signature files, we have to drop the Nexus repository to > > stage a new one, > > meaning cancel the current vote to do a new RC4. > > > > I can do that, up to you. > > > > Anyway, regarding the release content, +1 (binding). > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 12/18/2016 06:56 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > > > >> Indeed -- I did help JB with the release ever so slightly, due to the > >> networking connectivity issue reaching repository.apache.org, which JB > >> further described and is tracked in INFRA-13086 [1]. This is not > >> Beam-specific. > >> > >> The current signature shouldn't be a problem at all, but, since others > are > >> asking about it, I think it would be the best to simply re-sign the > source > >> .zip archive and continuing this vote. JB, what do you think? > >> > >> Regarding the release itself, I think we need to keep raising the > quality > >> and maturity release-over-release, and test signals are an excellent way > >> to > >> demonstrate that. Due to the recent upgrades to Jenkins, usage of the > DSL, > >> etc. (thanks INFRA and Jason Kuster), we can now, for the first time, > >> formally show that the release candidate clearly passes all Jenkins > suites > >> that we have: > >> * All unit tests across the project, plus example ITs across all runners > >> [2], [3]. > >> * All integration tests on the Apex runner [4]. > >> * All integration tests on the Flink runner [5]. > >> * All integration tests on the Spark runner [6]. > >> * All integration tests on the Dataflow runner [7]. > >> > >> That said, I know of a few issues/regressions in the areas that are not > >> well tested today. I think Dan Halperin has more context, so I'll let > him > >> speak of the details, and quote relevant JIRA issues. > >> > >> With the known issues in 0.3.0-incubating, such as trouble running > >> examples > >> out-of-the-box, I think this release candidate is a clear win. Of > course, > >> that may change if more issues are discovered. > >> > >> For me, this release candidate is +1 (at this time), contingent upon no > >> known major issues affecting Apex, Flink and Spark runners. > >> > >> Davor > >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-13086 > >> [2] > >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_ > >> MavenInstall/5994/ > >> [3] > >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java > >> _MavenInstall/2116/ > >> [4] > >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java > >> _RunnableOnService_Apex/10/ > >> [5] > >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java > >> _RunnableOnService_Flink/1120/ > >> [6] > >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java > >> _RunnableOnService_Spark/430/ > >> [7] > >> https://builds.apache.org/view/Beam/job/beam_PostCommit_Java > >> _RunnableOnService_Dataflow/1830/ > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Kenneth Knowles <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> +1, as long as it is fine for the release to be signed by a PMC member > >>> other than the release manager. Otherwise need to replace the .asc > file. > >>> > >>> Following [Apache release checklist]( > >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list): > >>> > >>> 1.1 Verified checksums & signature (Davor's) > >>> 2.1 Ran unit tests and integration tests > >>> 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct > >>> 3.2 LICENSE & NOTICE are correct > >>> 3.3 Files have license headers (RAT & checkstyle) > >>> 3.4 Provenance is clear > >>> 3.5 Dependencies license are legal (RAT) [2] > >>> 3.6 Release contains source code, no binaries > >>> > >>> Additionally: > >>> > >>> - Went over the generated javadoc (filed tickets but no release > >>> blockers) > >>> - Went over the generated release notes > >>> - Sanity checked the Maven Central artifacts > >>> - Confirmed that the git tag matches > >>> - Checked the website PR > >>> > >>> I heartily agree that the components would give much better context on > >>> tickets. Even with that, our JIRA titles could use a lot of > improvement. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everyone, > >>>> > >>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version > >>>> 0.4.0-incubating, 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], > >>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3], > >>>> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC3" [4], > >>>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API > >>>> > >>> reference > >>> > >>>> manual [5]. > >>>> > >>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority > >>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Regards > >>>> JB > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje > >>>> ctId=12319527&version=12338590 > >>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.4.0- > >>>> incubating/ > >>>> [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache > >>>> > >>> beam-1008/ > >>> > >>>> [4] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git > >>>> ;a=tag;h=112e38e4a68b07e6bf4916d1bdcc7ecaca8bbbd4 > >>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/109 > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > [email protected] > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > >
