Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #2

+1 (binding) Quickly checked on beam-samples. Regards JB > Le 10 avr. 2020 à 17:25, Kenneth Knowles a écrit : > > +1 > > Ran a small Java pipeline. > > Noting that the version in gradle.properties is 2.20.0-RC2: > https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/v2.20.0-RC2/gradle.properties#L26 >

Re: [Proposal] Requesting PMC approval to start planning for Beam Summits 2020

Ah, I just replied on the other thread. Still looks good to me :-) On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:40 AM Pablo Estrada wrote: > copying Brittany to the email with the 2020 subject to continue the > discussion. > > Max / Brittany, what are the steps for the PMC to approve y'all to move > forward? > >

Re: [Proposal] Requesting PMC approval to start planning for Beam Summits 2019

Looks good to me. We'll have to see what ASF is doing with their own events. We haven't gotten to dates, but I wonder if the usual conflict avoidance need not apply, since digital events don't require travel so are less of an imposition, plus have lots of viewership after the live event is done.

Re: [DISCUSS] Let's establish a guideline for using Python type annotations in Beam codebase

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 4:00 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev wrote: > My preference is also for type-comments for now. > > Is it possible to configure the type checkers that we use to require > type-comments in new code? > My personal opinion is that there comes a point where there's diminishing return

Re: [DISCUSS] Let's establish a guideline for using Python type annotations in Beam codebase

My preference is also for type-comments for now. Is it possible to configure the type checkers that we use to require type-comments in new code? On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 1:46 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > I prefer type-comments, as they can be validated by type checkers. Once we > drop 2.7, we

Re: [DISCUSS] Let's establish a guideline for using Python type annotations in Beam codebase

I prefer type-comments, as they can be validated by type checkers. Once we drop 2.7, we can go with actual type annotations (and the comments can be automatically converted over). On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:17 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev wrote: > I am seeing several styles we use to annotate

Re: [Proposal] Requesting PMC approval to start planning for Beam Summits 2020

copying Brittany to the email with the 2020 subject to continue the discussion. Max / Brittany, what are the steps for the PMC to approve y'all to move forward? I took a look at the proposal, and it looks great. I don't have any questions for now. Best -P. On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 1:50 AM

[DISCUSS] Let's establish a guideline for using Python type annotations in Beam codebase

I am seeing several styles we use to annotate non-pipeline code in Beam codebase: - informal docstring comments: file_pattern (str): the file glob to read, assign_context: Instance of AssignContext, - type comments like # type: (...) -> iobase.RestrictionTracker - pydoc-style annotation:

Re: [Proposal] Requesting PMC approval to start planning for Beam Summits 2019

Happy Friday! I just wanted to follow up with the PMC regarding the 2020 Digital Beam Summit proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions! On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:22 PM Brittany Hermann wrote: > My apologies all, I meant to say 2020 in the subject line. > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at

Re: Java Dependency Upgrades

Normally it is not a problem but leaving the snapshot artifacts around may cause issues elsewhere so cleaning them up is a good idea. On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:44 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Nice. That is very readable and fairly discoverable. > > Do you need to do anything with your .m2 to

Re: Java Dependency Upgrades

Nice. That is very readable and fairly discoverable. Do you need to do anything with your .m2 to make repeated runs work, or does the nature of the SNAPSHOT publish take care of that for you? Kenn On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:21 AM Luke Cwik wrote: > I captured a rudimentary process[1] based

Java Dependency Upgrades

I captured a rudimentary process[1] based upon the PR reviews I have done in this space to help contributors and committers. Feel free to update and/or point people to that cwiki page. 1: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BEAM/Dependency+Upgrades

Subscription Email

Beam 2.21 release update

Hi everyone, Just a heads up that the Beam 2.21 release branch [1] is cut. - If you find any important issues that you think should be addressed in the release, please tag the jira with fix version 2.21.0 and cc me (username `ibzib`). - Make sure to update the change log [2] with any significant

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #2

+1 ran wordcount against the following artifacts: - python/apache-beam-2.20.0.zip - beam-runners-flink-1.9-job-server-2.20.0.jar - apache/beam_flink1.9_job_server:2.20.0_rc2 - apache/beam_spark_job_server:2.20.0_rc2 On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:25 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > +1 > > Ran a small

Re: Request edit access to Beam wiki

Thank you Pablo! I have edit access now! On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:45 AM Pablo Estrada wrote: > Hi Ning! > I've given you edit privileges for the wiki. > Thanks! > -P. > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 10:33 AM Ning Kang wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've been developing some screendiff integration tests

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.20.0, release candidate #2

+1 Ran a small Java pipeline. Noting that the version in gradle.properties is 2.20.0-RC2: https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/v2.20.0-RC2/gradle.properties#L26. The versions in the built Java artifacts all seem to be the desired value of 2.20.0. Kenn On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:19 PM Robert

Re: [PROPOSAL] Snowflake Java Connector for Apache Beam

Hello It's been a while since my last activity on beam dev-list ;) Happy to be back! Few days ago Kasia created a JIRA issue for adding SnowflakeIO: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9722 Today, I'm happy to share the first PR with you with SnowflakeIO.Read: