I think it makes sense to wait and see what they say on INFRA-21266.  
In the mean time hopefully people can start testing it and if no other problems 
found and vote passes can stay published.  It seems like the 2 issues above 
wouldn't be blockers in my opinion and could be handled in a 3.1.1 but others 
can chime too.
If we find other issues with it in testing and they can't revert in INFRA-21266 
- I assume we handle by putting some documentation out there telling people not 
to use it and we go to 3.1.1.  
One thing I didn't follow was the comment: "release 3.1.1 fast that 
exceptionally allows a bit of breaking changes" - what do you mean by that?
if there is anything we can add to our release process documentation to prevent 
in the future that would be great as well.
    On Wednesday, January 6, 2021, 03:07:26 PM CST, Hyukjin Kwon 
<gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote:  
Yes, it was my mistake. I faced the same issue as INFRA-20651, and it is worse 
in my case because I misunderstood that RC and releases are separately released 
Right after this, I filed an INFRA JIRA to revert this at INFRA-21266. We can 
wait and see how it goes.

Though, I know it’s impossible to remove by right. It is possible to overwrite 
but it will affect people who already have it in their cache.
I am thinkthing two options:
   - Skip 3.1.0 and release 3.1.1 right away since the release isn’t officially 
out to the main Apache repo/mirrors but only one of the downstream channels. We 
can just say that there was something wrong during the 3.1.0 release so it 
became 3.1.1 right away.
   - Release 3.1.0 out, of course, based on the vote results here. We could 
release 3.1.1 fast that exceptionally allows a bit of breaking changes with 
properly documenting it in a release note and migration guide.
I would appreciate it if I could hear other people' opinions.



Reply via email to