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

[Ankur Goenka]

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
> 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 dependencies are always
> the path concatenated with dashes even when that is not the
> correct artifactId. For example sdks/java/testing/test-utils are resolved
> in the pom to beam-sdks-java-testing-test-utils. This does not exist; it
> manually sets the name to beam-sdks-java-test-utils, omitting the
> extraneous `testing` directory that exists only for taxonomy.
>
> There are a few other modules that manually set their archive name. From
> what I can tell, each of these is either (a) not published or (b) not
> depended upon. I am still checking.
>
> Kenn
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:22 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:
>
>> +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 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 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]
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.13.0

 On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:23 PM Chamikara Jayalath 
 wrote:
 >
 >
 >
 > 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 multiple things. How about we ask all cherry pick requests to
 have a JIRA filed against that release and marked as blockers?
 >
 >
 > I agree with this and with what Ankur said. Release blockers should
 be more explicit and should come with a reason. After voting thread start,
 I would say this should include a mail to the voting thread as well as a
 blocking JIRA. Other PRs opened against the branch may or may not get
 merged at the discretion of the release manager.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Cham
 >
 >>
 >>
 >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ankur Goenka 
 wrote:
 >>>
 >>> 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 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 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 for 3rd RC and
 https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was not blocking the 2.13
 release, I went with the release.
 >
 > I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we
 can not do another RC for 2.13.0.
 > If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix
 release 2.13.1.
 >
 >
 > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> 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
 >>
 >> I had requested to include 

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

[Kenneth Knowles]

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 dependencies are always the
path concatenated with dashes even when that is not the correct artifactId.
For example sdks/java/testing/test-utils are resolved in the pom to
beam-sdks-java-testing-test-utils. This does not exist; it manually sets
the name to beam-sdks-java-test-utils, omitting the extraneous `testing`
directory that exists only for taxonomy.

There are a few other modules that manually set their archive name. From
what I can tell, each of these is either (a) not published or (b) not
depended upon. I am still checking.

Kenn


On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:22 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:

> +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 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 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]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.13.0
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:23 PM Chamikara Jayalath 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 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 multiple things. How about we ask all cherry pick requests to
>>> have a JIRA filed against that release and marked as blockers?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I agree with this and with what Ankur said. Release blockers should be
>>> more explicit and should come with a reason. After voting thread start, I
>>> would say this should include a mail to the voting thread as well as a
>>> blocking JIRA. Other PRs opened against the branch may or may not get
>>> merged at the discretion of the release manager.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Cham
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ankur Goenka 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 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 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 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 for 3rd RC and
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was not blocking the 2.13
>>> release, I went with the release.
>>> >
>>> > I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can
>>> not do another RC for 2.13.0.
>>> > If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix
>>> release 2.13.1.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> 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
>>> >>
>>> >> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC:
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but would
>>> be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this branch.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Thomas
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The 

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

[Thomas Weise]

+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 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 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]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.13.0
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:23 PM Chamikara Jayalath 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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 multiple things. How about we ask all cherry pick requests to
>> have a JIRA filed against that release and marked as blockers?
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree with this and with what Ankur said. Release blockers should be
>> more explicit and should come with a reason. After voting thread start, I
>> would say this should include a mail to the voting thread as well as a
>> blocking JIRA. Other PRs opened against the branch may or may not get
>> merged at the discretion of the release manager.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Cham
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ankur Goenka  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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 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 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 for 3rd RC and
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was not blocking the 2.13
>> release, I went with the release.
>> >
>> > I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can
>> not do another RC for 2.13.0.
>> > If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix
>> release 2.13.1.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC:
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but would
>> be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this branch.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Thomas
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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, 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 <
>> apill...@google.com
>> >>> > > wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > +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 <
>> lc...@google.com
>> >>> >

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

[Ahmet Altay]

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 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]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.13.0
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:23 PM Chamikara Jayalath 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 multiple things. How about we ask all cherry pick requests to
> have a JIRA filed against that release and marked as blockers?
> >
> >
> > I agree with this and with what Ankur said. Release blockers should be
> more explicit and should come with a reason. After voting thread start, I
> would say this should include a mail to the voting thread as well as a
> blocking JIRA. Other PRs opened against the branch may or may not get
> merged at the discretion of the release manager.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cham
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ankur Goenka  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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 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 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 for 3rd RC and
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was not blocking the 2.13
> release, I went with the release.
> >
> > I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can
> not do another RC for 2.13.0.
> > If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix
> release 2.13.1.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but would
> be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this branch.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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, 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 <
> apill...@google.com
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > +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 <
> goe...@google.com
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Yes, i meant i will close the voting at 5pm and
> start the
> >>> >   

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

[Ismaël Mejía]

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] 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BEAM%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.13.0

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:23 PM Chamikara Jayalath  wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 multiple things. How about we ask all cherry pick requests to have 
>> a JIRA filed against that release and marked as blockers?
>
>
> I agree with this and with what Ankur said. Release blockers should be more 
> explicit and should come with a reason. After voting thread start, I would 
> say this should include a mail to the voting thread as well as a blocking 
> JIRA. Other PRs opened against the branch may or may not get merged at the 
> discretion of the release manager.
>
> Thanks,
> Cham
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ankur Goenka  wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 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 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 for 3rd RC and https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 
> was not blocking the 2.13 release, I went with the release.
>
> I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can not do 
> another RC for 2.13.0.
> If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix release 
> 2.13.1.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC: 
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but would 
>> be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this branch.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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, 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 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 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)
>>> >
>>> > 

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

[Chamikara Jayalath]

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 multiple things. How about we ask all cherry pick requests to
> have a JIRA filed against that release and marked as blockers?
>

I agree with this and with what Ankur said. Release blockers should be more
explicit and should come with a reason. After voting thread start, I would
say this should include a mail to the voting thread as well as a blocking
JIRA. Other PRs opened against the branch may or may not get merged at the
discretion of the release manager.

Thanks,
Cham


>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ankur Goenka  wrote:
>
>> 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 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 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 for 3rd RC and
 https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was not blocking the 2.13
 release, I went with the release.

 I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can not
 do another RC for 2.13.0.
 If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix release
 2.13.1.


 On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:

> 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
>
> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but
> would be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this
> branch.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels 
> wrote:
>
>> 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, 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 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 <
>> goe...@google.com
>> > > 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 <
>> lc...@google.com
>> > > 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
>> > mailto:goe...@google.com>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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, 

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

[Ankur Goenka]

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 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 multiple things. How about we ask all cherry pick requests to
> have a JIRA filed against that release and marked as blockers?
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ankur Goenka  wrote:
>
>> 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 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 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 for 3rd RC and
 https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was not blocking the 2.13
 release, I went with the release.

 I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can not
 do another RC for 2.13.0.
 If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix release
 2.13.1.


 On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:

> 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
>
> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but
> would be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this
> branch.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels 
> wrote:
>
>> 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, 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 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 <
>> goe...@google.com
>> > > 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 <
>> lc...@google.com
>> > > 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
>> > mailto:goe...@google.com>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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
>> > 

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

[Ahmet Altay]

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 have
a JIRA filed against that release and marked as blockers?

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ankur Goenka  wrote:

> 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 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 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 for 3rd RC and https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was
>>> not blocking the 2.13 release, I went with the release.
>>>
>>> I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can not
>>> do another RC for 2.13.0.
>>> If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix release
>>> 2.13.1.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:
>>>
 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

 I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC:
 https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but
 would be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this
 branch.

 Thanks,
 Thomas


 On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels 
 wrote:

> 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, 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 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 <
> goe...@google.com
> > > 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 <
> lc...@google.com
> > > 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
> > mailto:goe...@google.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > mailto:lc...@google.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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:
> >
> >  

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

[Ankur Goenka]

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 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 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 for 3rd RC and https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was
>> not blocking the 2.13 release, I went with the release.
>>
>> I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can not do
>> another RC for 2.13.0.
>> If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix release
>> 2.13.1.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC:
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but would
>>> be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this branch.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 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, 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 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 <
 goe...@google.com
 > > 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 <
 lc...@google.com
 > > 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
 > mailto:goe...@google.com>> wrote:
 >
 > 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
 > mailto:lc...@google.com>>
 wrote:
 >
 > 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:
 >  > Hi everyone,
 >  >
 >  > Please review and vote on the release
 > candidate #2 for the version
 >  > 2.13.0, as follows:

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

[Kenneth Knowles]

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 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 for 3rd RC and https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was
> not blocking the 2.13 release, I went with the release.
>
> I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can not do
> another RC for 2.13.0.
> If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix release
> 2.13.1.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC:
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but would
>> be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this branch.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels  wrote:
>>
>>> 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, 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 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 <
>>> goe...@google.com
>>> > > 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 <
>>> lc...@google.com
>>> > > 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
>>> > mailto:goe...@google.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> > mailto:lc...@google.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 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:
>>> >  > 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:
>>> >

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

[Ankur Goenka]

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 for 3rd RC and https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714 was
not blocking the 2.13 release, I went with the release.

I have released the maven artifacts for beam. So I suppose, we can not do
another RC for 2.13.0.
If we need anything urgently in 2.13 then we can do a bug fix release
2.13.1.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Thomas Weise  wrote:

> 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
>
> I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but would
> be nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this branch.
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels  wrote:
>
>> 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, 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 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 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
>> > mailto:goe...@google.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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
>> > mailto:lc...@google.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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:
>> >  > 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],
>> >  > * the official Apache source release to
>> > be deployed to dist.apache.org
>> > 
>> >  >  [2], which is
>> > signed with the key with
>> >  > fingerprint
>> > 

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

[Thomas Weise]

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

I had requested to include following backport PR before the RC:
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8714  - It's not blocking but would be
nice if someone can merge it for any future release from this branch.

Thanks,
Thomas


On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Maximilian Michels  wrote:

> 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, 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 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 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
> > mailto:goe...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > mailto:lc...@google.com>> wrote:
> >
> > 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:
> >  > 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],
> >  > * the official Apache source release to
> > be deployed to dist.apache.org
> > 
> >  >  [2], which is
> > signed with the key with
> >  > fingerprint
> > 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
> >  > * all artifacts to be deployed to the
> > Maven Central Repository [4],
> >  > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
> >  > * website pull request listing the
> > release [6] and publishing the API
> >  > reference manual [7].
> >  > * Python artifacts are deployed along
> > with the source release to the
> >  > dist.apache.org 
> >  [2].
> >   

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

[Maximilian Michels]

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, 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 java and SQL perfkit graphs, no obvious
regressions over the previous release.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:15 PM Lukasz Cwik mailto:lc...@google.com>> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:40 AM Ankur Goenka mailto:goe...@google.com>> 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 mailto:lc...@google.com>> 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
mailto:goe...@google.com>> wrote:

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
mailto:lc...@google.com>> wrote:

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 mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote:

+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 specific comments)
 >
 > The complete staging area is available
for your review, which includes:
 > * JIRA release notes [1],
 > * the official Apache source release to
be deployed to dist.apache.org

 >  [2], which is
signed with the key with
 > fingerprint
6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
 > * all artifacts to be deployed to the
Maven Central Repository [4],
 > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
 > * website pull request listing the
release [6] and publishing the API
 > reference manual [7].
 > * Python artifacts are deployed along
with the source release to the
 > dist.apache.org 
 [2].
 > * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0
release to help with validation
 > [8].
 >
 > The vote will be open for at least 72
hours. It is adopted by majority
 > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative
votes.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Ankur
 >
 > [1]
 >

https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
 > [2]
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
 > [3]
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
 > [4]

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

[Valentyn Tymofieiev]

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 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 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 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 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 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:
 > 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],
 > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
 dist.apache.org
 >  [2], which is signed with the key with
 > fingerprint 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
 > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
 [4],
 > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
 > * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the
 API
 > reference manual [7].
 > * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to
 the
 > dist.apache.org  [2].
 > * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with
 validation
 > [8].
 >
 > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
 majority
 > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Ankur
 >
 > [1]
 >
 https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
 > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
 > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
 > [4]
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
 > [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
 > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
 > [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
 > [8]
 >
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952

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

>>>

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

[Ankur Goenka]

+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 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 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  wrote:

> 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 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:
>>> > 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],
>>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>> dist.apache.org
>>> >  [2], which is signed with the key with
>>> > fingerprint 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
>>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
>>> > * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the
>>> API
>>> > reference manual [7].
>>> > * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to
>>> the
>>> > dist.apache.org  [2].
>>> > * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with
>>> validation
>>> > [8].
>>> >
>>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>> majority
>>> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Ankur
>>> >
>>> > [1]
>>> >
>>> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
>>> > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
>>> > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> > [4]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
>>> > [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
>>> > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
>>> > [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
>>> > [8]
>>> >
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbono...@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>

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

[Andrew Pilloud]

+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 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  wrote:
>>>
 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 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:
>> > 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],
>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>> dist.apache.org
>> >  [2], which is signed with the key with
>> > fingerprint 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
>> > * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the
>> API
>> > reference manual [7].
>> > * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>> > dist.apache.org  [2].
>> > * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with
>> validation
>> > [8].
>> >
>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>> majority
>> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Ankur
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
>> > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
>> > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>> > [4]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
>> > [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
>> > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
>> > [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
>> > [8]
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbono...@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>

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

[Lukasz Cwik]

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 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 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 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:
> > 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],
> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
> dist.apache.org
> >  [2], which is signed with the key with
> > fingerprint 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
> > * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API
> > reference manual [7].
> > * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
> > dist.apache.org  [2].
> > * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with
> validation
> > [8].
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> majority
> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ankur
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
> > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
> > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> > [4]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
> > [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
> > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
> > [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
> > [8]
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbono...@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

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

[Ankur Goenka]

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  wrote:
>
>> 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 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:
 > 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],
 > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
 dist.apache.org
 >  [2], which is signed with the key with
 > fingerprint 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
 > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
 > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
 > * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API
 > reference manual [7].
 > * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
 > dist.apache.org  [2].
 > * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with
 validation
 > [8].
 >
 > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
 > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Ankur
 >
 > [1]
 >
 https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
 > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
 > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
 > [4]
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
 > [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
 > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
 > [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
 > [8]
 >
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952

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

>>>

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

[Lukasz Cwik]

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 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 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:
>>> > 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],
>>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>>> >  [2], which is signed with the key with
>>> > fingerprint 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
>>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
>>> > * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API
>>> > reference manual [7].
>>> > * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>>> > dist.apache.org  [2].
>>> > * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with
>>> validation
>>> > [8].
>>> >
>>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Ankur
>>> >
>>> > [1]
>>> >
>>> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
>>> > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
>>> > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> > [4]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
>>> > [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
>>> > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
>>> > [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
>>> > [8]
>>> >
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbono...@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>

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

[Ankur Goenka]

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 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:
>> > 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],
>> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>> >  [2], which is signed with the key with
>> > fingerprint 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
>> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
>> > * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API
>> > reference manual [7].
>> > * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>> > dist.apache.org  [2].
>> > * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with validation
>> > [8].
>> >
>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Ankur
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
>> > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
>> > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>> > [4]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
>> > [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
>> > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
>> > [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
>> > [8]
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbono...@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>

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

[Lukasz Cwik]

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:
> > 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],
> > * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> >  [2], which is signed with the key with
> > fingerprint 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
> > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> > * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
> > * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API
> > reference manual [7].
> > * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
> > dist.apache.org  [2].
> > * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with validation
> > [8].
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ankur
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
> > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
> > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> > [4]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
> > [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
> > [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
> > [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
> > [8]
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbono...@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

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

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

+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 specific comments)
> 
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>  [2], which is signed with the key with
> fingerprint 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API
> reference manual [7].
> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
> dist.apache.org  [2].
> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with validation
> [8].
> 
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ankur
> 
> [1]
> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
> [8]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952

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

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

[Maximilian Michels]

+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: The voting closes on 2nd June so please validate and vote by then.


We generally we do not include weekends in the minimum voting period of 
72 hours. I'd propose to leave the vote open at least until Wednesday 
04:52 CEST which would be 72 hours excluding the weekend. Btw, thank you 
for all your work on preparing the RC!


-Max

On 03.06.19 09:33, Robert Bradshaw wrote:

+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.

Reminder: The voting closes on 2nd June so please validate and vote by then.

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:43 AM Ahmet Altay  wrote:


+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 stuck. I filed BEAM-7467 with 
all the details.

Note that I tried the quickstart for 2.8.0 through 2.12.0
2.8.0 and 2.9.0 failed due to a timeout (maybe I was using the wrong command 
but this test[1] suggests that I was using a correct one)
2.10.0 and higher fail due to the missing gs-collections dependency.

Manu, could you help figure out what is going on?

1: 
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/2d3bcdc542536037c3e657a8b00ebc222487476b/release/src/main/groovy/quickstart-java-gearpump.groovy#L33

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:53 PM 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 specific comments)

The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
* JIRA release notes [1],
* the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org [2], 
which is signed with the key with fingerprint 
6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
* all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
* source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
* website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API reference 
manual [7].
* Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the 
dist.apache.org [2].
* Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with validation [8].

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority 
approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.

Thanks,
Ankur

[1] 
https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
[2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
[3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
[4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
[5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
[6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
[7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
[8] 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952

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

[Robert Bradshaw]

+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.
>
> Reminder: The voting closes on 2nd June so please validate and vote by then.
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:43 AM Ahmet Altay  wrote:
>>
>> +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 stuck. I filed 
>>> BEAM-7467 with all the details.
>>>
>>> Note that I tried the quickstart for 2.8.0 through 2.12.0
>>> 2.8.0 and 2.9.0 failed due to a timeout (maybe I was using the wrong 
>>> command but this test[1] suggests that I was using a correct one)
>>> 2.10.0 and higher fail due to the missing gs-collections dependency.
>>>
>>> Manu, could you help figure out what is going on?
>>>
>>> 1: 
>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/2d3bcdc542536037c3e657a8b00ebc222487476b/release/src/main/groovy/quickstart-java-gearpump.groovy#L33
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:53 PM 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 specific comments)

 The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
 * JIRA release notes [1],
 * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org 
 [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint 
 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
 * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
 * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
 * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API 
 reference manual [7].
 * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the 
 dist.apache.org [2].
 * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with validation 
 [8].

 The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority 
 approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.

 Thanks,
 Ankur

 [1] 
 https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
 [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
 [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
 [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
 [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
 [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
 [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
 [8] 
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952

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

[Ankur Goenka]

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 Altay  wrote:

> +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 stuck. I filed
>> BEAM-7467 with all the details.
>>
>> Note that I tried the quickstart for 2.8.0 through 2.12.0
>> 2.8.0 and 2.9.0 failed due to a timeout (maybe I was using the wrong
>> command but this test[1] suggests that I was using a correct one)
>> 2.10.0 and higher fail due to the missing gs-collections dependency.
>>
>> Manu, could you help figure out what is going on?
>>
>> 1:
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/2d3bcdc542536037c3e657a8b00ebc222487476b/release/src/main/groovy/quickstart-java-gearpump.groovy#L33
>>
>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:53 PM 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 specific comments)
>>>
>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>>> 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>>> * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
>>> * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API
>>> reference manual [7].
>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>>> dist.apache.org [2].
>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with validation
>>> [8].
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>>> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ankur
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>>> [4]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
>>> [8]
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952
>>>
>>

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

[Ahmet Altay]

+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 stuck. I filed
> BEAM-7467 with all the details.
>
> Note that I tried the quickstart for 2.8.0 through 2.12.0
> 2.8.0 and 2.9.0 failed due to a timeout (maybe I was using the wrong
> command but this test[1] suggests that I was using a correct one)
> 2.10.0 and higher fail due to the missing gs-collections dependency.
>
> Manu, could you help figure out what is going on?
>
> 1:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/2d3bcdc542536037c3e657a8b00ebc222487476b/release/src/main/groovy/quickstart-java-gearpump.groovy#L33
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:53 PM 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 specific comments)
>>
>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
>> 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
>> * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
>> * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API
>> reference manual [7].
>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
>> dist.apache.org [2].
>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with validation
>> [8].
>>
>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
>> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ankur
>>
>> [1]
>> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
>> [4]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
>> [8]
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952
>>
>

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

[Lukasz Cwik]

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 2.12.0
2.8.0 and 2.9.0 failed due to a timeout (maybe I was using the wrong
command but this test[1] suggests that I was using a correct one)
2.10.0 and higher fail due to the missing gs-collections dependency.

Manu, could you help figure out what is going on?

1:
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/2d3bcdc542536037c3e657a8b00ebc222487476b/release/src/main/groovy/quickstart-java-gearpump.groovy#L33

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:53 PM 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 specific comments)
>
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint
> 6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
> * source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
> * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API
> reference manual [7].
> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
> dist.apache.org [2].
> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with validation
> [8].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>
> Thanks,
> Ankur
>
> [1]
> https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
> [4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
> [8]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952
>

[VOTE] Release 2.13.0, release candidate #2

[Ankur Goenka]

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],
* the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org [2],
which is signed with the key with fingerprint
6356C1A9F089B0FA3DE8753688934A6699985948 [3],
* all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
* source code tag "v2.13.0-RC2" [5],
* website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API
reference manual [7].
* Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the
dist.apache.org [2].
* Validation sheet with a tab for 2.13.0 release to help with validation
[8].

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.

Thanks,
Ankur

[1]
https://jira.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12345166
[2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.13.0/
[3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS
[4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1070/
[5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.13.0-RC2
[6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8645
[7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/589
[8]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1031196952