Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Davor Bonaci]

The third release candidate is now available for everyone's review [1],
which should be incorporating all feedback so far.

Please comment if there's additional feedback, as we are about to start the
voting process.

[1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1002

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz  wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification JB. In the projects I’ve been involved with,
> I’ve not seen that practice.
>
> As long as the resulting release ends up on dist.a.o I don’t think it’s a
> problem.
>
> -Taylor
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Taylor,
> >
> > Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on
> repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org only
> when the vote passed.
> >
> > Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will
> document) is:
> > - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform
> > - Close repo
> > - Start vote
> > - If passed, forward vote to incubator
> > - If passed, close repo
> > - Upload distro to dist
> > - Announce the release (mailing lists, website)
> >
> > It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on
> repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o?
> >>
> >> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven
> artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives and
> convenience binaries).
> >>
> >> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process.
> >>
> >> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote.
> >>
> >> -Taylor
> >>
> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone!
> >>> We've started the release process for our first release,
> 0.1.0-incubating.
> >>>
> >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional
> goals
> >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's
> currently in
> >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process.
> >>>
> >>> With this in mind, we've:
> >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272,
> >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating,
> >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging
> >>> repository [2].
> >>>
> >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified
> a few
> >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a
> peek
> >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible
> before we
> >>> start the voting process.
> >>>
> >>> Please let us know if you see any issues.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Davor
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating
> >>> [2]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > jbono...@apache.org
> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
>

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[P. Taylor Goetz]

Thanks for the clarification JB. In the projects I’ve been involved with, I’ve 
not seen that practice.

As long as the resulting release ends up on dist.a.o I don’t think it’s a 
problem.

-Taylor


> On Jun 8, 2016, at 12:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
> 
> Hi Taylor,
> 
> Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on 
> repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org only when 
> the vote passed.
> 
> Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will document) 
> is:
> - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform
> - Close repo
> - Start vote
> - If passed, forward vote to incubator
> - If passed, close repo
> - Upload distro to dist
> - Announce the release (mailing lists, website)
> 
> It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc.
> 
> Regards
> JB
> 
> On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on 
>> repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o?
>> 
>> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven 
>> artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives and 
>> convenience binaries).
>> 
>> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process.
>> 
>> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote.
>> 
>> -Taylor
>> 
>>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi everyone!
>>> We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating.
>>> 
>>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals
>>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in
>>> the repository, as well as work through the release process.
>>> 
>>> With this in mind, we've:
>>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272,
>>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating,
>>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging
>>> repository [2].
>>> 
>>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few
>>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek
>>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we
>>> start the voting process.
>>> 
>>> Please let us know if you see any issues.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Davor
>>> 
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating
>>> [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/
> 
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbono...@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Amit Sela]

To Davor, JB and anyone else helping with the release, Thanks! this looks
great.

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:11 PM Amit Sela  wrote:

> Regarding Dan's questions:
> 1. I'm not sure - it is built with spark-*_2.10 but I honestly don't know
> if this matters for the runner itself, it could be nice to have in order to
> be more informative. In addition, this will change with Spark 2.0 to Scala
> 2.11 AFAIK.
> 2. This is to allow running out-of-the-box examples I guess. The Flink
> runner just tells you how to do it on your own here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/master/runners/flink
> Would you say this is a better approach ?
>
> In any case, packaging is necessary to run on cluster and the shading
> rules are there for Guava - Beam/Hadoop..
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:14 PM Maximilian Michels  wrote:
>
>> I like the compromise on the Maven naming scheme. Thanks for
>> incorporating all the feedback!
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Taylor,
>> >
>> > Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on
>> > repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org
>> only when
>> > the vote passed.
>> >
>> > Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will
>> > document) is:
>> > - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform
>> > - Close repo
>> > - Start vote
>> > - If passed, forward vote to incubator
>> > - If passed, close repo
>> > - Upload distro to dist
>> > - Announce the release (mailing lists, website)
>> >
>> > It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > JB
>> >
>> >
>> > On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on
>> >> repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o?
>> >>
>> >> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven
>> >> artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source
>> archives and
>> >> convenience binaries).
>> >>
>> >> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process.
>> >>
>> >> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote.
>> >>
>> >> -Taylor
>> >>
>> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi everyone!
>> >>> We've started the release process for our first release,
>> >>> 0.1.0-incubating.
>> >>>
>> >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional
>> goals
>> >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's
>> currently
>> >>> in
>> >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process.
>> >>>
>> >>> With this in mind, we've:
>> >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272,
>> >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating,
>> >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging
>> >>> repository [2].
>> >>>
>> >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified
>> a
>> >>> few
>> >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a
>> >>> peek
>> >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible
>> before
>> >>> we
>> >>> start the voting process.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please let us know if you see any issues.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Davor
>> >>>
>> >>> [1]
>> >>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating
>> >>> [2]
>> >>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> > jbono...@apache.org
>> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Amit Sela]

Regarding Dan's questions:
1. I'm not sure - it is built with spark-*_2.10 but I honestly don't know
if this matters for the runner itself, it could be nice to have in order to
be more informative. In addition, this will change with Spark 2.0 to Scala
2.11 AFAIK.
2. This is to allow running out-of-the-box examples I guess. The Flink
runner just tells you how to do it on your own here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/master/runners/flink
Would you say this is a better approach ?

In any case, packaging is necessary to run on cluster and the shading rules
are there for Guava - Beam/Hadoop..

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:14 PM Maximilian Michels  wrote:

> I like the compromise on the Maven naming scheme. Thanks for
> incorporating all the feedback!
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
> > Hi Taylor,
> >
> > Just to be clearn, in most other projects, we stage the distributions on
> > repository. We upload the distro and signatures to dist.apache.org only
> when
> > the vote passed.
> >
> > Basically, the release process I talked with Davor (and that I will
> > document) is:
> > - Tag and stage using mvn release:prepare release:perform
> > - Close repo
> > - Start vote
> > - If passed, forward vote to incubator
> > - If passed, close repo
> > - Upload distro to dist
> > - Announce the release (mailing lists, website)
> >
> > It's based on what I do in Karaf, ServiceMix, etc.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >
> > On 06/08/2016 02:39 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >>
> >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on
> >> repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o?
> >>
> >> In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven
> >> artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives
> and
> >> convenience binaries).
> >>
> >> I'd be happy to help with documenting the process.
> >>
> >> I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote.
> >>
> >> -Taylor
> >>
> >>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone!
> >>> We've started the release process for our first release,
> >>> 0.1.0-incubating.
> >>>
> >>> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional
> goals
> >>> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently
> >>> in
> >>> the repository, as well as work through the release process.
> >>>
> >>> With this in mind, we've:
> >>> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272,
> >>> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating,
> >>> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging
> >>> repository [2].
> >>>
> >>> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a
> >>> few
> >>> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a
> >>> peek
> >>> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible
> before
> >>> we
> >>> start the voting process.
> >>>
> >>> Please let us know if you see any issues.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Davor
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating
> >>> [2]
> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > jbono...@apache.org
> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[P. Taylor Goetz]

Out of curiosity, is there a reason for distributing the release on 
repository.a.o vs. dist.a.o?

In my experience repository.a.o has traditionally been used for maven 
artifacts, and dist.a.o has been for release artifacts (source archives and 
convenience binaries).

I'd be happy to help with documenting the process.

I ask because this might come up during an IPMC release vote.

-Taylor

> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Davor Bonaci  wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone!
> We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating.
> 
> To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals
> for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in
> the repository, as well as work through the release process.
> 
> With this in mind, we've:
> * branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272,
> * updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating,
> * built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging
> repository [2].
> 
> We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few
> issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek
> and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we
> start the voting process.
> 
> Please let us know if you see any issues.
> 
> Thanks,
> Davor
> 
> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating
> [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Seetharam Venkatesh]

Aljoscha, if you want to be sure and want only one RC like me, I'd suggest
you search general incubator mail archive and look for comments from Justin
& Sebb - they are very thorough and will give you a headstart instead of
iterating multiple times.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:59 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:

> Hi Aljoscha
>
> It's basically here:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>
> The checklist is interesting to check the release content:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 06/07/2016 09:56 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > By the way, is there any document where we keep track of what checks to
> run
> > for a release? Maybe I missed something, there.
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 at 21:29 Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Just submitted: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/428
> >>
> >> to fix the src distribution content.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >> On 06/07/2016 09:26 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >>> I have to revert my vote to -1:
> >>>
> >>> the source distribution zip file is empty.
> >>>
> >>> I gonna submit a new PR to fix that.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry about that.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>> On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>  +1
> 
>  it looks good to me:
> 
>  - all files have incubating
>  - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there)
>  - disclaimer exists
>  - LICENSE and NOTICE good
>  - No unexpected binary in source
>  - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers
>  - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct
>  content:
> 
> 
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip
> 
> 
>  I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with
> this
>  staging, and forward to the IPMC review.
> 
>  Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him
>  bunch of times a day ;)).
> 
>  Regards
>  JB
> 
>  On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1].
> >
> > We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any
> > additional feedback.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles
>  >>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Lovely. Very readable.
> >>
> >> The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of
> our
> >> build
> >> configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right?
> >>
> >> Kenn
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the
> >> most
> >>> future-proof.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >> j...@nanthrax.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  +1
> 
>  Regards
>  JB
> 
> 
>  On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> 
> > After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other
> > projects,
> > I think we are converging towards:
> >
> > * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the
> > org.apache.beam
> > group.
> > * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-".
> > * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module
> layout:
> > beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java,
> etc.
> > * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent",
> > "sdks-java-parent", etc.
> > * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging
> the
> >>> source
> > code for the ASF release.
> >
> > I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback
> so
> >> far,
> > and
> > I think opposing positions have been retracted.
> >
> > Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any
> > additional
> > points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in
> > pending
> > pull
> > requests #420 and #423.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise
> > 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution
> >> solutions
> >> is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For
> >> that
> >> it
> >> may
> >> be good to 

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Aljoscha Krettek]

By the way, is there any document where we keep track of what checks to run
for a release? Maybe I missed something, there.

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 at 21:29 Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:

> Just submitted: https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/428
>
> to fix the src distribution content.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 06/07/2016 09:26 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > I have to revert my vote to -1:
> >
> > the source distribution zip file is empty.
> >
> > I gonna submit a new PR to fix that.
> >
> > Sorry about that.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> it looks good to me:
> >>
> >> - all files have incubating
> >> - signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there)
> >> - disclaimer exists
> >> - LICENSE and NOTICE good
> >> - No unexpected binary in source
> >> - All ASF licensed files have ASF headers
> >> - Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct
> >> content:
> >>
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with this
> >> staging, and forward to the IPMC review.
> >>
> >> Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him
> >> bunch of times a day ;)).
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >> On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> >>> The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1].
> >>>
> >>> We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any
> >>> additional feedback.
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles  >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  +1
> 
>  Lovely. Very readable.
> 
>  The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our
>  build
>  configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right?
> 
>  Kenn
> 
>  On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin
>  
>  wrote:
> 
> > +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the
> most
> > future-proof.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> j...@nanthrax.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >>
> >> On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> >>
> >>> After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other
> >>> projects,
> >>> I think we are converging towards:
> >>>
> >>> * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the
> >>> org.apache.beam
> >>> group.
> >>> * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-".
> >>> * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout:
> >>> beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc.
> >>> * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent",
> >>> "sdks-java-parent", etc.
> >>> * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the
> > source
> >>> code for the ASF release.
> >>>
> >>> I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so
>  far,
> >>> and
> >>> I think opposing positions have been retracted.
> >>>
> >>> Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any
> >>> additional
> >>> points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in
> >>> pending
> >>> pull
> >>> requests #420 and #423.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution
>  solutions
>  is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For
> that
>  it
>  may
>  be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique
> > artifactId.
> 
>  The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM)
>  can
> > also
>  be controlled without expanding the artifactId:
> 
> 
>    
>  
>    maven-assembly-plugin
>    
>  apache-beam
>    
>  
>    
> 
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Thomas
> 
>  On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci
>   >>
>  wrote:
> 
>  BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate
> for
> >
>  holding
> 
> > the release to pick that fix. For the very first release,
> however,
>  I'd
> > prefer to 

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

I have to revert my vote to -1:

the source distribution zip file is empty.

I gonna submit a new PR to fix that.

Sorry about that.

Regards
JB

On 06/07/2016 09:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:

+1

it looks good to me:

- all files have incubating
- signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there)
- disclaimer exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE good
- No unexpected binary in source
- All ASF licensed files have ASF headers
- Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct
content:
 
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip

I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with this
staging, and forward to the IPMC review.

Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him
bunch of times a day ;)).

Regards
JB

On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:

The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1].

We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any
additional feedback.

[1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles 
wrote:


+1

Lovely. Very readable.

The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our
build
configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right?

Kenn

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin

wrote:


+2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most
future-proof.

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:


+1

Regards
JB


On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:


After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other
projects,
I think we are converging towards:

* A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the
org.apache.beam
group.
* Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-".
* Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout:
beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc.
* Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent",
"sdks-java-parent", etc.
* Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the

source

code for the ASF release.

I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so

far,

and
I think opposing positions have been retracted.

Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional
points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in
pending
pull
requests #420 and #423.

Thanks!

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise 
wrote:

Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution

solutions
is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that

it

may
be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique

artifactId.


The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can

also

be controlled without expanding the artifactId:

   
  

  maven-assembly-plugin
  
apache-beam
  

  
   

Thanks,
Thomas

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

+1

it looks good to me:

- all files have incubating
- signatures check out (asc, md5, sha1) (and KEYS there)
- disclaimer exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE good
- No unexpected binary in source
- All ASF licensed files have ASF headers
- Source distribution is available, with a correct name, and correct 
content:


https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001/org/apache/beam/apache-beam/0.1.0-incubating/apache-beam-0.1.0-incubating-src.zip

I'm more comfortable to move forward on a formal release vote with this 
staging, and forward to the IPMC review.


Thanks all and especially to Davor (to support me when I bother him 
bunch of times a day ;)).


Regards
JB

On 06/07/2016 08:58 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:

The second release candidate is available for everyone's review [1].

We plan to call for a vote shortly; please comment if there's any
additional feedback.

[1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1001

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Kenneth Knowles 
wrote:


+1

Lovely. Very readable.

The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our build
configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right?

Kenn

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin 
wrote:


+2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most
future-proof.

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:


+1

Regards
JB


On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:


After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other
projects,
I think we are converging towards:

* A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the
org.apache.beam
group.
* Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-".
* Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout:
beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc.
* Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent",
"sdks-java-parent", etc.
* Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the

source

code for the ASF release.

I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so

far,

and
I think opposing positions have been retracted.

Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional
points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending
pull
requests #420 and #423.

Thanks!

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise 
wrote:

Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution

solutions
is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that

it

may
be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique

artifactId.


The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can

also

be controlled without expanding the artifactId:

   
  

  maven-assembly-plugin
  
apache-beam
  

  
   

Thanks,
Thomas

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Kenneth Knowles]

+1

Lovely. Very readable.

The "-parent" artifacts are just leaked implementation details of our build
configuration that no one should ever actually reference, right?

Kenn

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin 
wrote:

> +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most
> future-proof.
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >
> > On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> >
> >> After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other
> >> projects,
> >> I think we are converging towards:
> >>
> >> * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the
> >> org.apache.beam
> >> group.
> >> * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-".
> >> * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout:
> >> beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc.
> >> * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent",
> >> "sdks-java-parent", etc.
> >> * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the
> source
> >> code for the ASF release.
> >>
> >> I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far,
> >> and
> >> I think opposing positions have been retracted.
> >>
> >> Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional
> >> points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending
> >> pull
> >> requests #420 and #423.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution
> >>> solutions
> >>> is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it
> >>> may
> >>> be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique
> artifactId.
> >>>
> >>> The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can
> also
> >>> be controlled without expanding the artifactId:
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>>  maven-assembly-plugin
> >>>  
> >>>apache-beam
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>   
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Thomas
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci  >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for
> 
> >>> holding
> >>>
>  the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd
>  prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As
>  you
>  said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged
> in.
> 
>  In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches:
>  * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group
> and
>  are differentiated by their artifact id.
>  * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different
> 
> >>> types
> >>>
>  of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners).
> 
>  There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different
>  projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and
>  navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical
>  structure is just the opposite.
> 
>  On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have
> it,
> 
> >>> and
> >>>
>  it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should
> either
>  finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR
> to
> 
> >>> get
> >>>
>  back to a fully flat structure.
> 
>  My general biases tend to be:
>  * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already.
>  * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the
>  artifact id.
> 
>  On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré  >
>  wrote:
> 
>  Hi Max,
> >
> > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed:
> >
> > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent,
> >
>  flink-runner-parent,
> >>>
>  spark-runner-parent, etc).
> > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer
> to
> >
>  me,
> 
> > and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single
> > groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf,
> >
>  activemq,
> 
> > etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module:
> > "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and
> > BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different
> > distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries).
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >
> > On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian 

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Lukasz Cwik]

+1

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Dan Halperin 
wrote:

> +2! This seems most concordant with other Apache products and the most
> future-proof.
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >
> > On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> >
> >> After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other
> >> projects,
> >> I think we are converging towards:
> >>
> >> * A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the
> >> org.apache.beam
> >> group.
> >> * Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-".
> >> * Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout:
> >> beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc.
> >> * Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent",
> >> "sdks-java-parent", etc.
> >> * Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the
> source
> >> code for the ASF release.
> >>
> >> I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far,
> >> and
> >> I think opposing positions have been retracted.
> >>
> >> Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional
> >> points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending
> >> pull
> >> requests #420 and #423.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution
> >>> solutions
> >>> is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it
> >>> may
> >>> be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique
> artifactId.
> >>>
> >>> The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can
> also
> >>> be controlled without expanding the artifactId:
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>>  maven-assembly-plugin
> >>>  
> >>>apache-beam
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>   
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Thomas
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci  >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for
> 
> >>> holding
> >>>
>  the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd
>  prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As
>  you
>  said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged
> in.
> 
>  In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches:
>  * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group
> and
>  are differentiated by their artifact id.
>  * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different
> 
> >>> types
> >>>
>  of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners).
> 
>  There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different
>  projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and
>  navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical
>  structure is just the opposite.
> 
>  On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have
> it,
> 
> >>> and
> >>>
>  it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should
> either
>  finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR
> to
> 
> >>> get
> >>>
>  back to a fully flat structure.
> 
>  My general biases tend to be:
>  * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already.
>  * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the
>  artifact id.
> 
>  On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré  >
>  wrote:
> 
>  Hi Max,
> >
> > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed:
> >
> > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent,
> >
>  flink-runner-parent,
> >>>
>  spark-runner-parent, etc).
> > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer
> to
> >
>  me,
> 
> > and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single
> > groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf,
> >
>  activemq,
> 
> > etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module:
> > "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and
> > BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different
> > distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries).
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >
> > On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would
> >> like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for 

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

+1

Regards
JB

On 06/07/2016 02:49 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:

After a few rounds of discussions and examining patterns of other projects,
I think we are converging towards:

* A flat group structure, where all artifacts belong to the org.apache.beam
group.
* Prefix all artifact ids with "beam-".
* Name artifacts according to the existing directory/module layout:
beam-sdks-java-core, beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java, etc.
* Suffix all parents with "-parent", e.g., "beam-parent",
"sdks-java-parent", etc.
* Create a "distributions" module, for the purpose of packaging the source
code for the ASF release.

I believe this approach takes into account everybody's feedback so far, and
I think opposing positions have been retracted.

Please comment if that's not the case, or if there are any additional
points that we may have missed. If not, this is implemented in pending pull
requests #420 and #423.

Thanks!

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Thomas Weise  wrote:


Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution solutions
is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it may
be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId.

The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also
be controlled without expanding the artifactId:

  
 
   
 maven-assembly-plugin
 
   apache-beam
 
   
 
  

Thanks,
Thomas

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci 
wrote:


BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for

holding

the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd
prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you
said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in.

In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches:
* flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and
are differentiated by their artifact id.
* hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different

types

of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners).

There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different
projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and
navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical
structure is just the opposite.

On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it,

and

it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either
finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to

get

back to a fully flat structure.

My general biases tend to be:
* hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already.
* short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the
artifact id.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:


Hi Max,

I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed:

1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent,

flink-runner-parent,

spark-runner-parent, etc).
2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to

me,

and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single
groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf,

activemq,

etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one.

Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module:
"distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and
BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different
distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries).

Regards
JB


On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote:


Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would
like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the
first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release.
Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process
:)

I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids
again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam
parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner).
I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as
artifact ids.

One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're
not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to
"apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme
which used flat group ids (before [1]).

In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the
naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent
naming scheme.

Cheers,
Max

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287


On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Thomas Weise]

Another consideration for potential future packaging/distribution solutions
is how the artifacts line up as files in a flat directory. For that it may
be good to have a common prefix in the artifactId and unique artifactId.

The name for the source archive (when relying on ASF parent POM) can also
be controlled without expanding the artifactId:

 

  
maven-assembly-plugin

  apache-beam

  

 

Thanks,
Thomas

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Davor Bonaci 
wrote:

> BEAM-315 is definitely important. Normally, I'd always advocate for holding
> the release to pick that fix. For the very first release, however, I'd
> prefer to proceed to get something out there and test the process. As you
> said, we can address this rather quickly once we have the fix merged in.
>
> In terms of Maven coordinates, there are two basic approaches:
> * flat structure, where artifacts live under "org.apache.beam" group and
> are differentiated by their artifact id.
> * hierarchical structure, where we use different groups for different types
> of artifacts (org.apache.beam.sdks; org.apache.beam.runners).
>
> There are pros and cons on the both sides of the argument. Different
> projects made different choices. Flat structure is easier to find and
> navigate, but often breaks down with too many artifacts. Hierarchical
> structure is just the opposite.
>
> On my end, the only important thing is consistency. We used to have it, and
> it got broken by PR #365. This part should be fixed -- we should either
> finish the vision of the hierarchical structure, or rollback that PR to get
> back to a fully flat structure.
>
> My general biases tend to be:
> * hierarchical structure, since we have many artifacts already.
> * short identifiers; no need to repeat a part of the group id in the
> artifact id.
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Max,
> >
> > I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed:
> >
> > 1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, flink-runner-parent,
> > spark-runner-parent, etc).
> > 2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to
> me,
> > and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a single
> > groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf,
> activemq,
> > etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module:
> > "distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and
> > BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different
> > distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries).
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> >
> > On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would
> >> like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the
> >> first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release.
> >> Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process
> >> :)
> >>
> >> I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids
> >> again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam
> >> parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner).
> >> I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as
> >> artifact ids.
> >>
> >> One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're
> >> not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to
> >> "apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme
> >> which used flat group ids (before [1]).
> >>
> >> In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the
> >> naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent
> >> naming scheme.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Max
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with:
> >>> groupId: org.apache.beam
> >>> artifactId: apache-beam
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named
> >>> apache-beam-xxx-sources.zip and it would be clearer to dev.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts ?
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 06/02/2016 03:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> >>>
> 
>  Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId.
> 
>  Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to
>  "beam-parent" ?
> 
>  Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to
>  fix that (I will have a PR ready soon).
> 
>  Thoughts ?
> 
>  Regards
>  JB
> 
>  On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> 
> 

Re: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Hi Max,

I discussed with Davor yesterday. Basically, I proposed:

1. To rename all parent with a prefix (beam-parent, flink-runner-parent, 
spark-runner-parent, etc).
2. For the groupId, I prefer to use different groupId, it's clearer to 
me, and it's exactly the usage of the groupId. Some projects use a 
single groupId (spark, hadoop, etc), others use multiple (camel, karaf, 
activemq, etc). I prefer different groupIds but ok to go back to single one.


Anyway, I'm preparing a PR to introduce a new Maven module: 
"distribution". The purpose is to address both BEAM-319 (first) and 
BEAM-320 (later). It's where we will be able to define the different 
distributions we plan to publish (source and binaries).


Regards
JB

On 06/03/2016 11:02 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote:

Thanks for getting us ready for the first release, Davor! We would
like to fix BEAM-315 next week. Is there already a timeline for the
first release? If so, we could also address this in a minor release.
Releasing often will give us some experience with our release process
:)

I would like everyone to think about the artifact names and group ids
again. "parent" and "flink" are not very suitable names for the Beam
parent or the Flink Runner artifact (same goes for the Spark Runner).
I'd prefer "beam-parent", "flink-runner", and "spark-runner" as
artifact ids.

One might think of Maven GroupIds as a sort of hierarchy but they're
not. They're just an identifier. Renaming the parent pom to
"apache-beam" or "beam-parent" would give us the old naming scheme
which used flat group ids (before [1]).

In the end, I guess it doesn't matter too much if we document the
naming schemes accordingly. What matters is that we use a consistent
naming scheme.

Cheers,
Max

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-287


On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:

Actually, I think we can fix both issue in one commit.

What do you think about renaming the main parent POM with:
groupId: org.apache.beam
artifactId: apache-beam

?

Thanks to that, the source distribution will be named
apache-beam-xxx-sources.zip and it would be clearer to dev.

Thoughts ?

Regards
JB


On 06/02/2016 03:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:


Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId.

Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to
"beam-parent" ?

Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to
fix that (I will have a PR ready soon).

Thoughts ?

Regards
JB

On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:


Hi everyone!
We've started the release process for our first release,
0.1.0-incubating.

To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals
for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's
currently in
the repository, as well as work through the release process.

With this in mind, we've:
* branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272,
* updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating,
* built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging
repository [2].

We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified
a few
issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a
peek
and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible
before we
start the voting process.

Please let us know if you see any issues.

Thanks,
Davor

[1]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating
[2]
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/





--
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: 0.1.0-incubating release

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Another annoying thing is the main parent POM artifactId.

Now, it's just "parent". What do you think about renaming to "beam-parent" ?

Regarding the source distribution name, I would cancel this staging to 
fix that (I will have a PR ready soon).


Thoughts ?

Regards
JB

On 06/02/2016 03:46 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:

Hi everyone!
We've started the release process for our first release, 0.1.0-incubating.

To recap previous discussions, we don't have particular functional goals
for this release. Instead, we'd like to make available what's currently in
the repository, as well as work through the release process.

With this in mind, we've:
* branched off the release branch [1] at master's commit 8485272,
* updated master to prepare for the second release, 0.2.0-incubating,
* built the first release candidate, RC1, and deployed it to a staging
repository [2].

We are not ready to start a vote just yet -- we've already identified a few
issues worth fixing. That said, I'd like to invite everybody to take a peek
and comment. I'm hoping we can address as many issues as possible before we
start the voting process.

Please let us know if you see any issues.

Thanks,
Davor

[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/tree/release-0.1.0-incubating
[2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1000/



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