Thanks Dongjoon, Sean and Tom. I just thought that we could have some more
bug fixes or some changes if RC1 passes as a regular release due to the
relatively fewer RCs.
I agree that if this RC passes, it's just that an RC passed normally per
the regular process, and there's nothing wrong here. By right, there
shouldn't be any special treatment or difference in 3.1.1.
I more meant a practical point that we might happen to face some more bug
fixes or breaking changes (of course as an exception) that happens

2021년 1월 7일 (목) 오전 6:44, Tom Graves <>님이 작성:

> 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.
> Tom
> On Wednesday, January 6, 2021, 03:07:26 PM CST, Hyukjin Kwon <
>> 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 out.
> 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.
> Thanks.

Reply via email to