By the way, this step is in the "Release Guide".
Bu you are right, it means the release manager needs "permission" on the Jira
or ask to change the version state.
Regards
JB
On 03/16/2017 02:42 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote:
JB,
0.6.0 is flagged as released now, thank you for catching this. As a s
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On 03/16/2017 02:42 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote:
JB,
0.6.0 is flagged as released now, thank you for catching this. As a side
note, I did not have enough permissions do this and asked Davor to do. I
will add this to the release notes.
Ahmet
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Jess
JB,
0.6.0 is flagged as released now, thank you for catching this. As a side
note, I did not have enough permissions do this and asked Davor to do. I
will add this to the release notes.
Ahmet
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Jesse Anderson
wrote:
> Excellent!
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017, 6:13 AM
Excellent!
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017, 6:13 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi Ahmet,
>
> it seems Jira is not up to date: 0.6.0 version is not flagged as
> "Released".
>
> Can you fix that please ?
>
> Thanks !
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 03/15/2017 05:22 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote:
> > I'm happy to announce t
Hi Ahmet,
it seems Jira is not up to date: 0.6.0 version is not flagged as "Released".
Can you fix that please ?
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On 03/15/2017 05:22 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote:
I'm happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this release.
There are 7 approving votes, 4 of which are bi
Thanks Ahmet for dealing with the release, I just tried the pip install
apache-beam and the wordcount example and as you said it feels awesome to
see this working so easily now. Congrats to everyone working on the python
SDK !
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> This release
This release is now complete. Thanks to everyone who have helped make this
release possible!
Before sending a note to users@, I would like to make a pass over the
website and simplify things now that we have an official python release. I
did the first 'pip install apache-beam' today and it felt am
I'm happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this release.
There are 7 approving votes, 4 of which are binding:
* Aljoscha Krettek
* Davor Bonaci
* Ismaël Mejía
* Jean-Baptiste Onofré
* Robert Bradshaw
* Ted Yu
* Tibor Kiss
There are no disapproving votes.
Thanks everyone!
Ahmet
This vote is now complete. I'll summarize the results and next steps
in a separate
thread.
Thank you all for the comments and help.
Ahmet
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Ahmet Altay wrote:
> Thank you for the comments.
>
> Added the LICENSE and NOTICE files to the python ZIP file (also updat
Thank you for the comments.
Added the LICENSE and NOTICE files to the python ZIP file (also updates,
hashes and signature.) Will add this to the release guide as well. If
everyone is comfortable with this change I will proceed.
Thank you,
Ahmet
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Davor Bonaci wro
+1 (binding)
Contingent on adding NOTICE and LICENSE files into
"apache-beam-0.6.0-python.zip", just as they are present in the
"apache-beam-0.6.0-source-release.zip".
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> - verified release signature and hashes
> - mvn in
+1 (binding)
- verified release signature and hashes
- mvn install -Prelease runs smoothly
- created a Quickstart against the staging repo
- ran Quickstart with Flink local mode
- ran Quickstart against a Flink 1.2 cluster
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017, at 01:44, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
> Conclusion (
Conclusion (see JIRA): Not a release blocker (but still a bug in
TestPipeline).
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:40 PM Eugene Kirpichov
wrote:
> +Aljoscha Krettek
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Eugene Kirpichov
> wrote:
>
> +Stas Levin +Thomas Groh
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Eugene Ki
+Aljoscha Krettek
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Eugene Kirpichov
wrote:
> +Stas Levin +Thomas Groh
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Eugene Kirpichov
> wrote:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1712 might be a release
> blocker.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:53 PM Ahmet Altay
+Stas Levin +Thomas Groh
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Eugene Kirpichov
wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1712 might be a release
> blocker.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:53 PM Ahmet Altay
> wrote:
>
> Thank you for all the comment so far.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:23
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1712 might be a release blocker.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:53 PM Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> Thank you for all the comment so far.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
>
> > bq. I would prefer that we have a .tar.gz release
> >
> > +1
> >
> > O
Thank you for all the comment so far.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> bq. I would prefer that we have a .tar.gz release
>
> +1
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Ismaël Mejía wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > - verified signatures + checksums
> > - run mvn clean install
bq. I would prefer that we have a .tar.gz release
+1
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Ismaël Mejía wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> - verified signatures + checksums
> - run mvn clean install -Prelease, all artifacts build and the tests run
> smoothly (modulo some local issues I had with the ins
+1 (non-binding)
- verified signatures + checksums
- run mvn clean install -Prelease, all artifacts build and the tests run
smoothly (modulo some local issues I had with the installation of tox for
the python sdk, I created a PR to fix those in case other people can have
the same trouble).
Some
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Ahmet Altay
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Robert Bradshaw <
>> rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Ahmet Altay
>> > wrote:
>> >
>
bq. That name makes sense to me
+1
Maybe change the subject of this thread and send to dev@ to raise awareness
?
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Robert Bradshaw <
rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Ahmet Altay
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:48
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Robert Bradshaw <
> rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Ahmet Altay
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for
+1 (binding)
- Build is OK on the tag
- Checked the signature (updated)
- Checked checksums
- Checked ASF headers
- Run tests on my samples (Java SDK)
Regards
JB
On 03/11/2017 06:05 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote:
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 0.6.0,
a
Ismaël,
It is my mistake, I hashed files before the rename. I fixed the two files:
apache-beam-0.6.0-python.zip.md5
apache-beam-0.6.0-python.zip.sha1
Note that, there are no changes to the calculated hashes or to the zip file
itself.
I will document the correct procedure in my update to release
+1
Details:
- Built locally with 'mvn clean install –Prelease'
- Needed to change pip2 to pip2.7. This issue is known on OS X and shall not
block the release in my opinion.
- Sanity check on Python-SDK:
- apache-beam-0.6.0.tar.gz has the same content as apache-beam-0.6.0.zip
- ran wo
I was able to run "mvn clean install -Prelease" command successfully, too.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> Amit,
>
> I was able to successfully build in a clean environment with the following
> commands:
>
> git checkout tags/v0.6.0-RC2 -b RC2
> mvn clean install -Prelease
I found an issue too with the .md5 and sha1 files of the python release,
they refer to a different default file (a forgotten part of the renaming):
curl
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.6.0/apache-beam-0.6.0-python.zip.md5
7d4170e381ce0e1aa8d11bee2e63d151 apache-beam-0.6.0.zip
This
Amit,
I was able to successfully build in a clean environment with the following
commands:
git checkout tags/v0.6.0-RC2 -b RC2
mvn clean install -Prelease
I am not a very familiar with maven build process, it would be great if
someone else can also confirm this.
Ahmet
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at
Building the RC2 tag failed for me with: "mvn clean install -Prelease" on a
missing artifact "beam-sdks-java-harness" when trying to build
"beam-sdks-java-javadoc".
I want to make sure It's not something local that happens in my env. so if
anyone else could validate this it would be great.
Amit
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Robert Bradshaw <
rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Ahmet Altay
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 0.6.0,
> > as follows:
> > [ ] +1, Approve the release
> >
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 0.6.0,
> as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
>
> The complete staging area is a
>
>
> * Notice the current Python SDK may require sudo permissions in some
> > environments
> >
>
> Ahmet, any thoughts here? Would be good to fix, if feasible.
>
I missed this question. Sergio, could you explain more when sudo
permissions are required? Are you referring to running outside a
virtu
+1
Checked signature.
Ran test suite which passed.
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 0.6.0,
> as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide s
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 0.6.0,
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],
*
Let's cancel the vote on RC1 and I will start a new one. I think Davor had
a great summary and I will make those changes for RC2.
I only have one comment, I would rather keep a single file format (.zip)
instead of using both file formats (.zip, .tar.gz). I think this is better
for having a single
> * Also I got this minor warning on the Maven build:
> >
> > [WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the effective
> model
> > for org.apache.beam:beam-runners-google-cloud-dataflow-java:jar:0.6.0
> > [WARNING] 'dependencies.dependency.(groupId:artifactId:type:classifier)'
> > must
I agree with the sentiment that we should build a new release candidate.
BEAM-1674 problem. I have a fix for it in this PR:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2217
>
> I'm afraid we have to cancel the release yet again because this is a real
> bug that people can run into.
>
+1 -- let's take t
+1 (non-binding)
So far I've successfully checked:
* signatures and digests
* source releases file layouts
* no binaries included in the source release
* matched git tag
* NOTICE and LICENSE files
* license headers
* clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Maven 3.3.9, Python 2.7.12+, Debian amd64)
BTW, some
Sorry for the BEAM-1674 problem. We just discovered this by chance
because Kenneth added a more thorough Stateful DoFn test.
I have a fix for it in this PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2217
I'm afraid we have to cancel the release yet again because this is a
real bug that people can run i
+0
The release by itself looks good:
- checked signatures
- ASF headers
- Build is OK
- Tested on some additional samples (beam-samples)
However, some good to have:
1. The
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/0.6.0/apache-beam-0.6.0.tar.gz
should be name apache-beam-0.6.0-python.tar.g
bq. ran into a known issue [14]
Currently BEAM-1674 is marked blocker. Would it be pushed to next release ?
Cheers
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.6.0,
> as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the
+1
Checked signature
Ran test suite - all passed.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.6.0,
> as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide spe
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 0.6.0,
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],
*
Thank you Kenn.
Currently I am waiting for BEAM-649 and BEAM-1611. I will start again, once
both of them are resolved.
Ahmet
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Kenneth Knowles
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> BEAM-1619 is resolved. BEAM-1611 is in PR and I'll update again when it is
> confirmed and merged.
>
Hi all,
BEAM-1619 is resolved. BEAM-1611 is in PR and I'll update again when it is
confirmed and merged.
Kenn
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Groh
wrote:
> Hey everyone;
>
> The submission of Surgery for the Dataflow Runner in the Java SDK has
> broken all streaming jobs that use Side
Hey everyone;
The submission of Surgery for the Dataflow Runner in the Java SDK has
broken all streaming jobs that use Side Inputs in that runner.
I'm working on a fix, ETA later today. I'd like to block the release on
that. Sorry for the late notification.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/
Hi Kenn,
Fair enough. +1
Regards
JB
On 03/03/2017 12:28 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote:
Hi all,
I've just filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1611. It is
technically not a bug in Beam but the easiest quick fix is to workaround in
the DataflowRunner, so I'd like to block the release on
Hi all,
I've just filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1611. It is
technically not a bug in Beam but the easiest quick fix is to workaround in
the DataflowRunner, so I'd like to block the release on it. It should be
available ahead of the release's existing schedule, and can easily be
Thanks Ahmet !
Regards
JB
On 03/02/2017 07:42 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote:
Sure, I can wait. To be clear, Thursday night in which time zone?
Thank you,
Ahmet
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
Hi Ahmet,
Can you wait up to Thursday night ? Trying to merge BEAM-649.
Tha
Pacific time is fine.
Regards
JB
On 03/02/2017 07:42 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote:
Sure, I can wait. To be clear, Thursday night in which time zone?
Thank you,
Ahmet
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
Hi Ahmet,
Can you wait up to Thursday night ? Trying to merge BEAM-64
Sure, I can wait. To be clear, Thursday night in which time zone?
Thank you,
Ahmet
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> Hi Ahmet,
>
> Can you wait up to Thursday night ? Trying to merge BEAM-649.
>
> Thanks !
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 03/01/2017 07:23 PM, Ahmet Altay wro
Hi Ahmet,
Can you wait up to Thursday night ? Trying to merge BEAM-649.
Thanks !
Regards
JB
On 03/01/2017 07:23 PM, Ahmet Altay wrote:
Thank you. I will start working on it.
Ahmet
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
I just closed the last blocking issue, we should be g
Thank you. I will start working on it.
Ahmet
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> I just closed the last blocking issue, we should be good to go now.
>
> Sorry again for the hold-up.
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 18:38 Ahmet Altay wrote:
>
> Thank you all. I will wait for rel
I just closed the last blocking issue, we should be good to go now.
Sorry again for the hold-up.
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 18:38 Ahmet Altay wrote:
Thank you all. I will wait for release blocking issues to be closed.
Sergio, thank you for the information. I will document the friction points
durin
Thank you all. I will wait for release blocking issues to be closed.
Sergio, thank you for the information. I will document the friction points
during this release process. Following the release we can start a
discussion about how to fix those.
Ahmet
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Aljoscha Kre
That was my mistake, sorry for that. I should have tagged [1] as a blocker
because leaking state is probably a bad idea. At least then people would be
aware and we could have discussed whether it is a blocker.
There is already an open PR for this now.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEA
Regarding BEAM-649, it's not a release blocker, it's a good to have.
As I'm pretty close to the end of the Pull Request (hopefully tonight or
tomorrow), it's a "Good To Have".
Regards
JB
On 02/28/2017 06:09 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
Can we please use JIRA to tag potentially release-blocking is
Can we please use JIRA to tag potentially release-blocking issues? Anyone
can just add a 'Fix Versions' field of an open issue to the next scheduled
release -- and it becomes easily visible to everyone in the project.
In general, I'm not a fan of blocking releases for new functionality.
Rushing ne
I would like to finish these two:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1036: Support for new State API
in FlinkRunner
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1116: Support for new Timer API
in Flink runner
Both of them are finished for the streaming runner, for the batch runner
I'm mergin
Fair enough.
I also try to merge https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1739 asap.
Regards
JB
On 02/28/2017 09:34 AM, Amit Sela wrote:
I'd prefer we wait to merge https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2050
Shouldn't take long now..
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:00 AM Sergio Fernández wrote:
Sounds
I'd prefer we wait to merge https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/2050
Shouldn't take long now..
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:00 AM Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Sounds good!
>
> Ahmet, notice ASF has not current infrastructure to stage Python Release
> Candidates. Anyway we left unmanaged the Maven dep
Sounds good!
Ahmet, notice ASF has not current infrastructure to stage Python Release
Candidates. Anyway we left unmanaged the Maven deploy lifecycle for the
Python SDK, but it should be discussed at some point.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's been abou
+1
(sorry if this message is duplicated, I'm not sure my previous message
has been delivered).
Let me know if you need any help for the release.
Regards
JB
On 02/27/2017 11:01 PM, Ahmet Altay wrote:
Hi all,
It's been about a month since the last release. I would like propose
starting the n
+1
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Dan Halperin
wrote:
> Sounds great to me!
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Sourabh Bajaj <
> sourabhba...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > +1 for the new release
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:06 PM Davor Bonaci wrote:
> >
> > > +1 -- let's get it star
Sounds great to me!
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Sourabh Bajaj <
sourabhba...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> +1 for the new release
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:06 PM Davor Bonaci wrote:
>
> > +1 -- let's get it started!
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Ahmet Altay
> > wrote:
> >
> >
+1 for the new release
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:06 PM Davor Bonaci wrote:
> +1 -- let's get it started!
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Ahmet Altay
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It's been about a month since the last release. I would like propose
> > starting the next release. There are
+1 -- let's get it started!
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Ahmet Altay
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's been about a month since the last release. I would like propose
> starting the next release. There are no releasing blocking bugs in JIRA
> [1]. Are there any release blocking issues I am missing?
Hi all,
It's been about a month since the last release. I would like propose
starting the next release. There are no releasing blocking bugs in JIRA
[1]. Are there any release blocking issues I am missing?
Unless there is an objection I will volunteer to manage this release. This
will be the firs
68 matches
Mail list logo
