No worries about the accident. We're human beings, and everyone can make a
mistake. Let's wait and see the response of INFRA-21266.

Just a 2 cents, I'm actually leaning toward to skip 3.1.0 and start the
release process for 3.1.1, as anyone could be some sort of "rushing" on
verification on 3.1.0. As we're already biased by the fact the release is
already available, the RC might not be tested intensively and extensively.
I'm also OK to continue verification on RC1 and consider this as official
3.1.0 once vote passes if we are sure to do the normal release candidate QA
without bias. (I mean skipping some verifications they normally did, or
consider serious bugs to be "later" based on the expectation that 3.1.1
comes pretty soon.)

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 6:56 AM Hyukjin Kwon <> wrote:

> 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
> sometimes.
> 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