Re: Pain points in the 2.3.0 release / improvements to 2.4.0 release process?

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

I think it would be a "good to have" point (maybe not a blocker).
I will propose a release guide PR about this tomorrow.

Regards
JB

Le 1 mars 2018 à 09:09, à 09:09, Lukasz Cwik  a écrit:
>Should we change release policy so that the validation tests are
>required
>to pass on a release candidate as a requirement for the release to be
>approved?
>
>If so, we should update the release guide saying so.
>
>On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
>wrote:
>
>> Cool, thanks !
>>
>> Maybe at least a note to run nexmark on every RC to compare the
>results
>> with
>> previous releases is interesting.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 03/01/2018 02:02 AM, Alan Myrvold wrote:
>> > Thanks for the feedback.  Yifan and I have automated the Java
>> quickstarts for
>> > apex, direct, dataflow, flink local and spark [1] and automated
>python
>> release
>> > validation [2]. Yifan is working on fixing the Java mobile
>archetype and
>> > validating the mobile example. The spark quickstart automation came
>in
>> late, but
>> > identified the [BEAM-3668] issue in RC2.
>> >
>> > The Java quickstarts are now running daily with the snapshot
>release [3]
>> and are
>> > parameterized to make it easy to run with the next RC candidate.
>> >
>> > Hope these help make the next release smoother. Open to ideas for
>other
>> areas to
>> > automate.
>> >
>> > [1]
>https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/master/release/src/main/groovy
>> > [2]
>> > https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/release/src/
>> main/groovy/run_release_candidate_python_validation.sh
>> > [3] https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Beam/job/beam_
>> PostRelease_NightlySnapshot/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:54 AM Lukasz Cwik > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > Validating the release by following quickstarts being a manual
>> process I
>> > believe is still the largest pain point:
>> > * We missed that the archetypes were missing the mobile gaming
>> examples.
>> > * The tcnative dependency conflict that we needed to cut RC2
>for.
>> >
>> > Overall much smoother then the prior release but still a good
>amount
>> of
>> > manual steps involved.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Reuven Lax > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks for fixing the manual cleanup issue! This is
>something we
>> kept
>> > punting on in previous releases.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:14 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>> j...@nanthrax.net
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Alan,
>> >
>> > Honestly,  it was an easy and smooth release, similar
>to
>> other
>> > Apache project
>> > release.
>> >
>> > Maybe the points where we could a little bit improve
>are:
>> >
>> > 1. The website update was pretty long as @asfgit merge
>> didn't work
>> > (due to a out
>> > of sync on the github mirror). I think the website
>publish
>> PR can be
>> > automatized.
>> > 2. Upload to pylib required manual action (like
>renaming the
>> files)
>> >
>> > Thanks to the change I did on the assembly, the
>artifacts
>> don't
>> > require any
>> > manual cleanup (whereas it was the case in previous
>release).
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > JB
>> >
>> > On 02/26/2018 10:54 PM, Alan Myrvold wrote:
>> > > Is there a list of pain points during the 2.3.0
>release and
>> > improvements that
>> > > can be made to the 2.4.0 release process?
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> > jbono...@apache.org 
>> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbono...@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>

Re: Pain points in the 2.3.0 release / improvements to 2.4.0 release process?

[Lukasz Cwik]

Should we change release policy so that the validation tests are required
to pass on a release candidate as a requirement for the release to be
approved?

If so, we should update the release guide saying so.

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:

> Cool, thanks !
>
> Maybe at least a note to run nexmark on every RC to compare the results
> with
> previous releases is interesting.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 03/01/2018 02:02 AM, Alan Myrvold wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback.  Yifan and I have automated the Java
> quickstarts for
> > apex, direct, dataflow, flink local and spark [1] and automated python
> release
> > validation [2]. Yifan is working on fixing the Java mobile archetype and
> > validating the mobile example. The spark quickstart automation came in
> late, but
> > identified the [BEAM-3668] issue in RC2.
> >
> > The Java quickstarts are now running daily with the snapshot release [3]
> and are
> > parameterized to make it easy to run with the next RC candidate.
> >
> > Hope these help make the next release smoother. Open to ideas for other
> areas to
> > automate.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/master/release/src/main/groovy
> > [2]
> > https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/release/src/
> main/groovy/run_release_candidate_python_validation.sh
> > [3] https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Beam/job/beam_
> PostRelease_NightlySnapshot/
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:54 AM Lukasz Cwik  > > wrote:
> >
> > Validating the release by following quickstarts being a manual
> process I
> > believe is still the largest pain point:
> > * We missed that the archetypes were missing the mobile gaming
> examples.
> > * The tcnative dependency conflict that we needed to cut RC2 for.
> >
> > Overall much smoother then the prior release but still a good amount
> of
> > manual steps involved.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Reuven Lax  > > wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for fixing the manual cleanup issue! This is something we
> kept
> > punting on in previous releases.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:14 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> j...@nanthrax.net
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > Honestly,  it was an easy and smooth release, similar to
> other
> > Apache project
> > release.
> >
> > Maybe the points where we could a little bit improve are:
> >
> > 1. The website update was pretty long as @asfgit merge
> didn't work
> > (due to a out
> > of sync on the github mirror). I think the website publish
> PR can be
> > automatized.
> > 2. Upload to pylib required manual action (like renaming the
> files)
> >
> > Thanks to the change I did on the assembly, the artifacts
> don't
> > require any
> > manual cleanup (whereas it was the case in previous release).
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On 02/26/2018 10:54 PM, Alan Myrvold wrote:
> > > Is there a list of pain points during the 2.3.0 release and
> > improvements that
> > > can be made to the 2.4.0 release process?
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > jbono...@apache.org 
> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbono...@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Re: Pain points in the 2.3.0 release / improvements to 2.4.0 release process?

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Cool, thanks !

Maybe at least a note to run nexmark on every RC to compare the results with
previous releases is interesting.

Regards
JB

On 03/01/2018 02:02 AM, Alan Myrvold wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback.  Yifan and I have automated the Java quickstarts for
> apex, direct, dataflow, flink local and spark [1] and automated python release
> validation [2]. Yifan is working on fixing the Java mobile archetype and
> validating the mobile example. The spark quickstart automation came in late, 
> but
> identified the [BEAM-3668] issue in RC2.
> 
> The Java quickstarts are now running daily with the snapshot release [3] and 
> are
> parameterized to make it easy to run with the next RC candidate.
> 
> Hope these help make the next release smoother. Open to ideas for other areas 
> to
> automate.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/master/release/src/main/groovy
> [2]
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/release/src/main/groovy/run_release_candidate_python_validation.sh
> [3] 
> https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Beam/job/beam_PostRelease_NightlySnapshot/
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:54 AM Lukasz Cwik  > wrote:
> 
> Validating the release by following quickstarts being a manual process I
> believe is still the largest pain point:
> * We missed that the archetypes were missing the mobile gaming examples.
> * The tcnative dependency conflict that we needed to cut RC2 for.
> 
> Overall much smoother then the prior release but still a good amount of
> manual steps involved.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Reuven Lax  > wrote:
> 
> Thanks for fixing the manual cleanup issue! This is something we kept
> punting on in previous releases.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:14 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
>  > wrote:
> 
> Hi Alan,
> 
> Honestly,  it was an easy and smooth release, similar to other
> Apache project
> release.
> 
> Maybe the points where we could a little bit improve are:
> 
> 1. The website update was pretty long as @asfgit merge didn't work
> (due to a out
> of sync on the github mirror). I think the website publish PR can 
> be
> automatized.
> 2. Upload to pylib required manual action (like renaming the 
> files)
> 
> Thanks to the change I did on the assembly, the artifacts don't
> require any
> manual cleanup (whereas it was the case in previous release).
> 
> Regards
> JB
> 
> On 02/26/2018 10:54 PM, Alan Myrvold wrote:
> > Is there a list of pain points during the 2.3.0 release and
> improvements that
> > can be made to the 2.4.0 release process?
> >
> 
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbono...@apache.org 
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> 
> 

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: Pain points in the 2.3.0 release / improvements to 2.4.0 release process?

[Alan Myrvold]

Thanks for the feedback.  Yifan and I have automated the Java quickstarts
for apex, direct, dataflow, flink local and spark [1] and automated python
release validation [2]. Yifan is working on fixing the Java mobile
archetype and validating the mobile example. The spark quickstart
automation came in late, but identified the [BEAM-3668] issue in RC2.

The Java quickstarts are now running daily with the snapshot release [3]
and are parameterized to make it easy to run with the next RC candidate.

Hope these help make the next release smoother. Open to ideas for other
areas to automate.

[1] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/master/release/src/main/groovy
[2]
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/release/src/main/groovy/run_release_candidate_python_validation.sh
[3]
https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Beam/job/beam_PostRelease_NightlySnapshot/



On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:54 AM Lukasz Cwik  wrote:

> Validating the release by following quickstarts being a manual process I
> believe is still the largest pain point:
> * We missed that the archetypes were missing the mobile gaming examples.
> * The tcnative dependency conflict that we needed to cut RC2 for.
>
> Overall much smoother then the prior release but still a good amount of
> manual steps involved.
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Reuven Lax  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for fixing the manual cleanup issue! This is something we kept
>> punting on in previous releases.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:14 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alan,
>>>
>>> Honestly,  it was an easy and smooth release, similar to other Apache
>>> project
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Maybe the points where we could a little bit improve are:
>>>
>>> 1. The website update was pretty long as @asfgit merge didn't work (due
>>> to a out
>>> of sync on the github mirror). I think the website publish PR can be
>>> automatized.
>>> 2. Upload to pylib required manual action (like renaming the files)
>>>
>>> Thanks to the change I did on the assembly, the artifacts don't require
>>> any
>>> manual cleanup (whereas it was the case in previous release).
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 02/26/2018 10:54 PM, Alan Myrvold wrote:
>>> > Is there a list of pain points during the 2.3.0 release and
>>> improvements that
>>> > can be made to the 2.4.0 release process?
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbono...@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>
>

Re: Pain points in the 2.3.0 release / improvements to 2.4.0 release process?

[Lukasz Cwik]

Validating the release by following quickstarts being a manual process I
believe is still the largest pain point:
* We missed that the archetypes were missing the mobile gaming examples.
* The tcnative dependency conflict that we needed to cut RC2 for.

Overall much smoother then the prior release but still a good amount of
manual steps involved.

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Reuven Lax  wrote:

> Thanks for fixing the manual cleanup issue! This is something we kept
> punting on in previous releases.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:14 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> Honestly,  it was an easy and smooth release, similar to other Apache
>> project
>> release.
>>
>> Maybe the points where we could a little bit improve are:
>>
>> 1. The website update was pretty long as @asfgit merge didn't work (due
>> to a out
>> of sync on the github mirror). I think the website publish PR can be
>> automatized.
>> 2. Upload to pylib required manual action (like renaming the files)
>>
>> Thanks to the change I did on the assembly, the artifacts don't require
>> any
>> manual cleanup (whereas it was the case in previous release).
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 02/26/2018 10:54 PM, Alan Myrvold wrote:
>> > Is there a list of pain points during the 2.3.0 release and
>> improvements that
>> > can be made to the 2.4.0 release process?
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbono...@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>

Re: Pain points in the 2.3.0 release / improvements to 2.4.0 release process?

[Reuven Lax]

Thanks for fixing the manual cleanup issue! This is something we kept
punting on in previous releases.


On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:14 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:

> Hi Alan,
>
> Honestly,  it was an easy and smooth release, similar to other Apache
> project
> release.
>
> Maybe the points where we could a little bit improve are:
>
> 1. The website update was pretty long as @asfgit merge didn't work (due to
> a out
> of sync on the github mirror). I think the website publish PR can be
> automatized.
> 2. Upload to pylib required manual action (like renaming the files)
>
> Thanks to the change I did on the assembly, the artifacts don't require any
> manual cleanup (whereas it was the case in previous release).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 02/26/2018 10:54 PM, Alan Myrvold wrote:
> > Is there a list of pain points during the 2.3.0 release and improvements
> that
> > can be made to the 2.4.0 release process?
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbono...@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Re: Pain points in the 2.3.0 release / improvements to 2.4.0 release process?

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Hi Alan,

Honestly,  it was an easy and smooth release, similar to other Apache project
release.

Maybe the points where we could a little bit improve are:

1. The website update was pretty long as @asfgit merge didn't work (due to a out
of sync on the github mirror). I think the website publish PR can be 
automatized.
2. Upload to pylib required manual action (like renaming the files)

Thanks to the change I did on the assembly, the artifacts don't require any
manual cleanup (whereas it was the case in previous release).

Regards
JB

On 02/26/2018 10:54 PM, Alan Myrvold wrote:
> Is there a list of pain points during the 2.3.0 release and improvements that
> can be made to the 2.4.0 release process?
> 

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com