Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Retrying the whole step succeeded, so somehow this was an ephemeral error. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > I've fixed the Python issue - turns out my local path got messed up. > > However, mvn release:prepare is now failing with the following. I haven't > seen this failure b

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

I've fixed the Python issue - turns out my local path got messed up. However, mvn release:prepare is now failing with the following. I haven't seen this failure before - does anyone know what might be causing it? [*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-release-plugin:2.5.3

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

This is with the CP of Eugene's PR. However Eugene's PR does not touch anything Python. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Reuven Lax wrote: > > mvn -Prelease clean install > > > [*INFO*] *--- *exec-maven-plugin:1.5.0:exec *(setuptools-clean)* @ > beam-sdks-python* ---* > > Could not find platfor

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

mvn -Prelease clean install [*INFO*] *--- *exec-maven-plugin:1.5.0:exec *(setuptools-clean)* @ beam-sdks-python* ---* Could not find platform independent libraries Could not find platform dependent libraries Consider setting $PYTHONHOME to [:] ImportError: No module named site [*ERROR*] Co

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Could you send the command you used that produced this error? I can't reproduce it at the tip of the release-2.2.0 branch. On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 5:34 AM Reuven Lax wrote: > I'm trying to do the last CP and cut RC4, but I'm getting a compilation > failure in Python - "ImportError: No module na

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

I'm trying to do the last CP and cut RC4, but I'm getting a compilation failure in Python - "ImportError: No module named site" Did we possibly break the release branch on one of the Python CPs? Reuven On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Reuven, > > +1 for RC4, an

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Hi Reuven, +1 for RC4, and don't worry: it's part of the process. I prefer to have a long release process than a crappy a release ;) That's exactly the purpose of review & vote. I definitely think that having releases more often will reduce such kind of issue. Regards JB On 11/12/2017 09:0

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

I definitely appreciate the frustration about how long this release is taking. It's verging on the point of ridiculous at this point, and we need to fix some of the things that caused us to get to this state (for one thing our infrastructure was so busted at one point, that Valentyn spent 2 weeks t

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Le 11 nov. 2017 09:52, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" a écrit : If the purpose is to release 2.2.1 in one week, why not just to a RC4 ? It's not a regression because WriteFiles is new and extend the previous FileSource. So it could consider as a severe bug, especially on WriteFiles which is important.

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

If the purpose is to release 2.2.1 in one week, why not just to a RC4 ? It's not a regression because WriteFiles is new and extend the previous FileSource. So it could consider as a severe bug, especially on WriteFiles which is important. The core issue is the time we spent already on this re

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

You can see it differently: is there a critical bug? Yes! Is there a regression? No! So no need to wait another week (keep in mind 2 days + 3 days of vote makes easily 1 working week). This vote could be closed already and next week 2.2.1 could fix this bug, no? Overall idea is to not hold the com

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

-1 (binding) I agree with Eugene, data loss is severe. As Eugene seems confident to fix that quickly, I think it's worth to cut a RC4. However, I would introduce a deadline. As I would like to propose a release cycle of a release every 6 weeks (whatever it contains, but it really important to

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

iday is around the corner, it would be nice to > release 2.2.0 sooner. > Cheers > Original message From: Chamikara Jayalath > Date: 11/10/17 12:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: > dev@beam.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate > #3 > We found another

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Considering that the holiday is around the corner, it would be nice to release 2.2.0 sooner.  Cheers  Original message From: Chamikara Jayalath Date: 11/10/17 12:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: dev@beam.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3 We found

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

For the second issue, I'm just waiting for the tests to pass to merge. After that will send out a PR to cherry pick. So this should not delay the release by more than few hours. Not sure about the first issue. But given that it's a data loss I would like to get that fix in as well. Thanks, Cham O

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Both issues are particular cases. Can the 2.2.0 be out and a 2.2.1 done quickly after? Would be very appreciated to have the 2.2.0 fixes to not depend on snapshots anymore due to some blockers found in the core of previous releases. Le 10 nov. 2017 21:23, "Chamikara Jayalath" a écrit : > We fou

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

We found another issue that should probably be fixed in 2.2.0 release: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3172 A fix is out for review and will be merged soon. Thanks, Cham On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:43 AM Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > Unfortunately I think I found a data loss bug - it was

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Unfortunately I think I found a data loss bug - it was there since 2.0.0 but I think it's serious enough that delaying a fix until the next release would be irresponsible. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3169 On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:57 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > Our release note

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Our release notes look like nothing more than a query for the closed jira issues. Do we have a top-level summary to highlight the big ticket items in the release? And in particular somewhere to mention that this is likely the last release to support Java 7 that'll get widely read? On Thu, Nov 9, 2

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Thanks, This RC is currently failing on a number of validation steps, so we need to cut at least one more RC. Fingers crossed that it will be the last one. Reuven On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Konstantinos Katsiapis < katsia...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Just a remark: Release of Tensorflow

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Just a remark: Release of Tensorflow Transform 0.4.0 depends on release of Apache Beam 2.2.0 so upvoting for a release (the sooner the better). On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > Are we waiting for any more validation of this candidate?

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Are we waiting for any more validation of this candidate? If people are still running tests I'll hold off on RC4 (to reduce the chance of an RC5), otherwise I'll cut RC4 once Valentyn's PR is merged. Reuven On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Valentyn Tymofieiev < valen...@google.com.invalid> wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4109 is out to address both findings I reported earlier. On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Etienne Chauchot wrote: > Just as a remark, I compared (on my laptop though) queries execution times > on my previous run of 2.2.0-RC3 with release 2.1.0 and I did not see

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

Just as a remark, I compared (on my laptop though) queries execution times on my previous run of 2.2.0-RC3 with release 2.1.0 and I did not see any performance regression. Best Etienne Le 09/11/2017 à 03:13, Valentyn Tymofieiev a écrit : I looked at Python side of Dataflow & Direct runners

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.0, release candidate #3

I looked at Python side of Dataflow & Direct runners on Linux. There are two findings: 1. One of the mobile gaming examples did not pass for Dataflow runner, addressed in: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4102