I just don't see a reason to believe there's a rush? just test it as
normal? I did, you can too, etc.
Or specifically what blocks the current RC?

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 5:46 PM Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com>

> 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 <gurwls...@gmail.com> 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 <tgraves...@yahoo.com>님이 작성:
>>> I think it makes sense to wait and see what they say on INFRA-21266
>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/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 <
>>> gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, it was my mistake. I faced the same issue as INFRA-20651
>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/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
>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/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