Thank you Andrew!!!
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:21 AM Andrew Pilloud wrote:
> Yes, they were moved and are now at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/2.12.0/
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 2:02 AM Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for all the hard work!
> >
> >
Yes, they were moved and are now at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/2.12.0/
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 2:02 AM Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the hard work!
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.12.0/ seems empty; were
> the artifacts already moved?
>
> On
Thanks for all the hard work!
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.12.0/ seems empty; were
the artifacts already moved?
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:31 AM Etienne Chauchot wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Thanks for all your work and patience Andrew !
>
> PS: as a side note, there were 5 binding votes
Hi,
Thanks for all your work and patience Andrew !
PS: as a side note, there were 5 binding votes (I voted +1)
Etienne
Le jeudi 25 avril 2019 à 11:16 -0700, Andrew Pilloud a écrit :
> I reran the Nexmark tests, each runner passed. I compared the numbers
> on the direct runner to the dashboard
+1 thank you Andrew!!!
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:44 AM Tim Robertson
wrote:
> Thank you for running the release Andrew
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 8:24 PM Andrew Pilloud
> wrote:
>
>> I reran the Nexmark tests, each runner passed. I compared the numbers
>> on the direct runner to the
Thank you for running the release Andrew
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 8:24 PM Andrew Pilloud wrote:
> I reran the Nexmark tests, each runner passed. I compared the numbers
> on the direct runner to the dashboard and they are where they should
> be.
>
> With that, I'm happy to announce that we have
I reran the Nexmark tests, each runner passed. I compared the numbers
on the direct runner to the dashboard and they are where they should
be.
With that, I'm happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this release.
There are 8 approving votes, 4 of which are binding:
* Jean-Baptiste
The Nexmark dataflow runs don't seem to be triggered by Run Java
PostCommit.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:58 AM Etienne Chauchot
wrote:
> Reuven,
>
> Nexmark tests are indeed run as PostCommits (each commit on master). I
> guess we have been flooded with jenkins notification emails.
>
> Etienne
>
Reuven,
Nexmark tests are indeed run as PostCommits (each commit on master). I guess we
have been flooded with jenkins
notification emails.
Etienne
Le mardi 23 avril 2019 à 15:24 -0700, Reuven Lax a écrit :
> I mistakenly though that Java PostCommit would run these tests, and I merged
> based
Hi, I agree that checking Nexmark should be a mandatory task of the release
process, I think it is already mentioned in
the spreadsheet. Indeed it detects both functional and performances regressions
and on all the beam model scope.The only
lacking things in Nexmark are with 2 runners:-
I think we should also leverage/invest in the automation for RC
validation. We have some validation scripts, but last time I looked at
them they worked only partially and had several usability issues.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 3:24 PM Ahmet Altay wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 3:21 PM
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 3:21 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> What can we do to make this part of day-to-day workflow instead of finding
> out during release validation? Was this just a failing test that was missed?
>
> Kenn
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 3:02 PM Andrew Pilloud
> wrote:
>
>> It looks
I mistakenly though that Java PostCommit would run these tests, and I
merged based on PostCommit passing. That's how the bug got into master.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 3:21 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
> What can we do to make this part of day-to-day workflow instead of finding
> out during release
What can we do to make this part of day-to-day workflow instead of finding
out during release validation? Was this just a failing test that was missed?
Kenn
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 3:02 PM Andrew Pilloud wrote:
> It looks like Java Nexmark tests are on the validation sheet but we've
> missed
It looks like Java Nexmark tests are on the validation sheet but we've
missed it the last few releases. Thanks for checking it Etienne! Does the
current release process require everything to be tested before making the
release final?
I fully agree with you on point 2. All of these issues were in
-1
we need to cherry pick pr/8325 and pr/8385 to fix the above issue
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 1:48 PM Andrew Pilloud wrote:
> I believe the breakage of Nexmark on Dataflow is
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7002, which went in before the
> release was cut. It looks like this might
Please consider the vote for RC4 canceled. I'll quickly follow up with a
new RC.
Thanks for the complete testing everyone!
Andrew
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:06 PM Reuven Lax wrote:
> -1
>
> we need to cherry pick pr/8325 and pr/8385 to fix the above issue
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 1:48 PM
I believe the breakage of Nexmark on Dataflow is
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7002, which went in before the
release was cut. It looks like this might be a release blocker based on the
fix: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8325.
The degraded performance is after the release is
Etienne RC1 vote happened in 04/03 and there have not been any cherry
picks on the spark runner afterwards so if there is a commit that
degraded performance around 04/10 it is not part of the release we are
voting, so please consider reverting your -1.
However the issue you are reporting looks
Hi guys ,I will vote -1 (binding) on this RC (although degradation is before
RC4 cut date). I took a look at Nexmark
graphs for the 3 major runners :- there seem to have functional regressions on
Dataflow:
https://apache-beam-testing.appspot.com/explore?dashboard=5647201107705856 . 13
queries
I signed the wheels files and updated the build process to not require
giving travis apache credentials. (You should probably change your password
if you haven't already.)
Andrew
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:18 PM Ahmet Altay wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Verified the python 2 wheel files with quick
+1 (binding)
Verified the python 2 wheel files with quick start examples.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:26 AM Ahmet Altay wrote:
> I built the wheel files. They are in the usual place along with other
> python artifacts. I will test them a bit and update here. Could someone
> else please try the
I built the wheel files. They are in the usual place along with other
python artifacts. I will test them a bit and update here. Could someone
else please try the wheel files as well?
Andrew, could you sign and hash the wheel files?
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:11 AM Ahmet Altay wrote:
> I
I verified
- signatures and hashes.
- python streaming quickstart guide
I would like to verify the wheel files before voting. Please let us know
when they are ready. Also, if you need help with building wheel files I can
help/build.
Ahmet
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3:33 AM Maximilian Michels
+1 (binding)
Found a minor bug while testing, but not a blocker:
https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7128
Thanks,
Max
On 20.04.19 23:02, Pablo Estrada wrote:
+1
Ran SQL postcommit, and Dataflow Portability Java validatesrunner tests.
-P.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 1:38 AM Jean-Baptiste
+1
Ran SQL postcommit, and Dataflow Portability Java validatesrunner tests.
-P.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 1:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Quickly checked with beam-samples.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 16/04/2019 00:50, Andrew Pilloud wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Please
+1 (binding)
Quickly checked with beam-samples.
Regards
JB
On 16/04/2019 00:50, Andrew Pilloud wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #4 for the version
> 2.12.0, as follows:
>
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please
+1
Ran the verification scripts.
Caveats:
- I input a GCS bucket that did not exist, expecting it to be created, so
the Dataflow tests failed.
- I also skipped the Python tests that asked to write to GitHub.
- You also have not built, staged, & signed the Python wheels. It is a bit
hidden in
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #4 for the version 2.12.0,
as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
* JIRA release notes [1],
29 matches
Mail list logo
