Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Thanks Kenn, for identifying the issue. If no artifacts affected artifacts are published then we should be good. Let me know if we need to make any changes in 2.13.0 On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:53 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Just discovered a potentially serious issue that was present during this

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Just discovered a potentially serious issue that was present during this RC: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7493. So far I have not discovered a truly user-facing impact, and example validation succeeded, but I wanted to alert the list. Summary: When rendering a published pom.xml the

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

+1 and I think all of that can be covered with JIRA. Irrespective the release manager still needs to pay attention to the communication on the VOTE thread. On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:19 AM Ahmet Altay wrote: > Checking that JIRA link sounds reasonable as long as we can agree that it > is single

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Checking that JIRA link sounds reasonable as long as we can agree that it is single source of truth for cherry pick requests. I also agree with Cham, requests need to come with a reason. On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:38 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > I don't think we need anything fancier or marking even

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

I don't think we need anything fancier or marking even as Blocker some of this stuff, would not be enough just to monitor that [1] has no issues? (of course if the interested party has not put the fix version to the current ongoing vote one this is a mistake). [1]

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:02 PM Ahmet Altay wrote: > I would suggest have a single way of tracking cherry pick request to an > RC. Currently we use emails on the RC thread, open PRs, and Jiras tagged > for the release. This is confusing the person doing the release while they > are juggling

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Final few things remaining for the release * Please review https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8667 After which we can * Release version finalized in JIRA (PMC help needed) * Release version is listed at reporter.apache.org (PMC help needed) * Promote the release. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:02 PM

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

I would suggest have a single way of tracking cherry pick request to an RC. Currently we use emails on the RC thread, open PRs, and Jiras tagged for the release. This is confusing the person doing the release while they are juggling multiple things. How about we ask all cherry pick requests to

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

That makes sense. I would also like to add that the corresponding PR should be added to an open blocking Jira for the release to keep a single source to check. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:15 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > I would

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

I would actually suggest that the following search needs to be triaged to zero before cutting an RC: https://github.com/apache/beam/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+base%3Arelease-2.13.0 . On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:17 AM Ankur Goenka wrote: > Sorry, I missed the comment for not including

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Sorry, I missed the comment for not including weekend's to 72 hours voting period. I meant to update the blog post https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8667/files once we have finalized the RC so that it can be consistent. Please add any comments to PR and I can incorporate them. As we did not go

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

This seems a rushed and things fall through the cracks. Max had requested to not include the weekend into the voting period. Valentyn: I had the same question on the first RC. The PR should be included into the vote for review. You can find it here: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8667/files

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

The summary is not correct. Binding votes (in order): Ahmet Altay Robert Bradshaw Maximilian Michels Jean-Baptiste Onofré Lukasz Cwik A total of 5 binding votes. On 04.06.19 02:37, Ankur Goenka wrote: +1 Thanks for validating the release and voting. With 0(-1), 6(+1) and 3(+1 binding) votes,

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Thanks, Ankur, for driving the release. Do we have a draft of user-friendly summary of release notes with high-level changes somewhere? If so, please tag me on a document or a PR, or post the link in this thread. Thank you! On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:38 PM Ankur Goenka wrote: > +1 > Thanks for

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

+1 Thanks for validating the release and voting. With 0(-1), 6(+1) and 3(+1 binding) votes, I am concluding the voting process. I am going ahead with the release and will keep the community posted with the updates. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:57 PM Andrew Pilloud wrote: > +1 Reviewed the Nexmark

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

+1 Reviewed the Nexmark java and SQL perfkit graphs, no obvious regressions over the previous release. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:15 PM Lukasz Cwik wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:40 AM Ankur Goenka wrote: > >> Yes, i meant i will close the voting at 5pm and

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Thanks for the clarification. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:40 AM Ankur Goenka wrote: > Yes, i meant i will close the voting at 5pm and start the release process. > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 10:59 AM Lukasz Cwik wrote: > >> Ankur, did you mean to say your going to close the vote today at 5pm? >> (and

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Yes, i meant i will close the voting at 5pm and start the release process. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 10:59 AM Lukasz Cwik wrote: > Ankur, did you mean to say your going to close the vote today at 5pm? (and > then complete the release afterwards) > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:54 AM Ankur Goenka

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Ankur, did you mean to say your going to close the vote today at 5pm? (and then complete the release afterwards) On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:54 AM Ankur Goenka wrote: > Thanks for validating and voting. > > We have 4 binding votes. > I will complete the release today 5PM. Please raise any

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Thanks for validating and voting. We have 4 binding votes. I will complete the release today 5PM. Please raise any concerns before that. Thanks, Ankur On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:36 AM Lukasz Cwik wrote: > Since the gearpump issue has been ongoing since 2.10, I can't consider it > a blocker for

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Since the gearpump issue has been ongoing since 2.10, I can't consider it a blocker for this release and am voting +1. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:13 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Quickly tested on beam-samples. > > Regards > JB > > On 31/05/2019 04:52, Ankur Goenka wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

+1 (binding) Quickly tested on beam-samples. Regards JB On 31/05/2019 04:52, Ankur Goenka wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version > 2.13.0, as follows: > > [ ] +1, Approve the release > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

+1 (binding) Tested Flink Runner local/cluster execution with the included examples and all supported Flink versions. There is an issue with the staging for remote execution but it is not a blocker since an alternative way exists: https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-7478 Reminder:

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

+1 I validated the artifacts and Python 3. On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 7:45 PM Ankur Goenka wrote: > > Thanks Ahmet and Luke for validation. > > If no one has objections then I am planning to move ahead without Gearpump > validation as it seems to be broken from past multiple releases. > >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Thanks Ahmet and Luke for validation. If no one has objections then I am planning to move ahead without Gearpump validation as it seems to be broken from past multiple releases. Reminder: The voting closes on 2nd June so please validate and vote by then. On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:43 AM Ahmet

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

+1 I validated python 2 quickstarts. On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:22 AM Lukasz Cwik wrote: > I did the Java local quickstart for all the runners in the release > validation sheet and gearpump failed for me due to a missing dependency. > Even after I fixed up the dependency, the pipeline then got

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

I did the Java local quickstart for all the runners in the release validation sheet and gearpump failed for me due to a missing dependency. Even after I fixed up the dependency, the pipeline then got stuck. I filed BEAM-7467 with all the details. Note that I tried the quickstart for 2.8.0 through

[VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

Hi everyone, Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 2.13.0, 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],