Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

Thanks Kenn. Which experimental feature are you referring to? On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:00 AM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 is a correctness > issue, basically an experimental feature (I hope marked as such) not really > working at all. It probably

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 is a correctness issue, basically an experimental feature (I hope marked as such) not really working at all. It probably has a fairly small audience for now. I will not -1 because of it but I will -0. If there is another RC this should be included.

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

Please note https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11777 - another bug we found while trying to upgrade to 2.21 Other than that things look good. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:14 PM Ahmet Altay wrote: > +1 (again, validated with new whl files.) > > What about

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:08 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:55 PM Luke Cwik wrote: > >> The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release pick >> up anything that isn't critical. >> > > +1. The question is whether this will result in broken installs

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

+1 (again, validated with new whl files.) What about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015? Is this a blocker? +Kenneth Knowles +Reuven Lax -- since you are both tagged on the JIRA. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:09 PM Kyle Weaver wrote: > > We *really* need to automate the building

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

> We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts, rather than have so many manual steps... Agreed. Luckily building wheels is one of only a couple steps that aren't automated yet. Partially related: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-9388. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:55 PM Luke Cwik wrote: > The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release pick > up anything that isn't critical. > +1. The question is whether this will result in broken installs (e.g. if we don't exclude Flink 1.10.1 and the user tries to use it

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

The 2.22 release is also being worked on. Rather allow that release pick up anything that isn't critical. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:51 PM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts, > rather than have so many manual steps... > > The new set of

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

We *really* need to automate the building and deploying of artifacts, rather than have so many manual steps... The new set of wheels look good now. Verified all the hashes and signatures and source tarball contents as well. Ran a couple of test pipelines. I noticed

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

Nevermind, uploading the wheels to dist.apache.org is part of ./sign_hash_python_wheels.sh, which I forgot to run. Wheels should be up to date now, PTAL. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:27 PM Kyle Weaver wrote: > > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. > > Thanks for catching

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

> -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. Thanks for catching that Robert. I had to rebuild the wheels after some cherry picks. I validated that the wheels in gs://beam-wheels-staging are up to date. They then must not have overwritten the wheels on dist.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

Since the current RC has been -1ed maybe we can include BEAM-9887 as part of the next RC, no? It is definitely not a blocker but a nice to have. On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:26 AM Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > -1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g. > > unzip -p >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

-1, the wheel files seem to be built against the wrong commit. E.g. unzip -p apache_beam-2.21.0-cp35-cp35m-macosx_10_6_intel.macosx_10_9_intel.macosx_10_9_x86_64.macosx_10_10_intel.macosx_10_10_x86_64.whl apache_beam/runners/worker/bundle_processor.py | head -n 40 notice the missing "import

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

Hi Luke, The release is not severely broken without PR #11609. The PR ensures that, while building a Row with Logical Type, the input value provided is proper. If we take FixedBytes logical type with length 10, for example, the proper input value will be a byte array of length 10. But, without

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

Rahul, do you believe that the release is severely broken without PR/11609 enough to require another release candidate or would waiting till 2.22 (which is due to be cut tomorrow)? On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM rahul patwari wrote: > Hi, > > Can the PR:

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

Hi, Can the PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/11609 be cherry-picked for 2.21.0 release? If not, the fix version has to be changed for BEAM-9887 . Regards, Rahul On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:05 AM Ahmet Altay wrote: > +1, I validated python

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

+1, I validated python 2 and 3 quickstarts. On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Hannah Jiang wrote: > I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java and Python > docker images as expected. > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver wrote: > >> Thanks for bringing that up

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

I confirmed that licenses/notices/source code are added to Java and Python docker images as expected. On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Kyle Weaver wrote: > Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote on > whether that necessitates an RC #2. > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

Thanks for bringing that up Steve. I'll leave it to others to vote on whether that necessitates an RC #2. On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:22 PM Steve Niemitz wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21 but > isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-10015 was marked as 2.21 but isn't in the RC1 tag. It's marked as P1, and seems like the implication is that without the fix, pipelines can produce incorrect data. Is this a blocker? On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kyle Weaver wrote: > Hi everyone, >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.21.0, release candidate #1

+1 (binding) Verified: * Signatures and file hashes * Java quickstarts on local cluster runners and Dataflow. On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 1:51 PM Kyle Weaver wrote: > Hi everyone, > Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 2.21.0, > as follows: > [ ] +1, Approve the