Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Thanks ! Regards JB On 02/17/2018 09:34 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > Done. > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:59 PM, Ahmet Altay wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Can someone from Python grand me permission to upload Python SDK 2.3.

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Done. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:59 PM, Ahmet Altay wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Can someone from Python grand me permission to upload Python SDK 2.3.0 to >> PyPi ? > > > lukecwik, kennknowles, aljoscha, robertwb, davorbonaci are the

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi, > > Can someone from Python grand me permission to upload Python SDK 2.3.0 to > PyPi ? > lukecwik, kennknowles, aljoscha, robertwb, davorbonaci are the package owners, any of them can do it. > > My user is jbonofre. > > Thanks

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Hi, Can someone from Python grand me permission to upload Python SDK 2.3.0 to PyPi ? My user is jbonofre. Thanks ! Regards JB On 02/16/2018 03:40 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Great !!! > > Thanks for the update, I will close the vote then. > > Regards > JB > > On 02/15/2018 11:45 PM, Be

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Thanks Ben! On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:06 AM Ben Sidhom wrote: > To get Flink 1.4.0 installed on Dataproc, I used my own init action. After > starting a detached flink session (e.g, HADOOP_CONF_DIR=/etc/hadoop/conf > /usr/lib/flink/bin/yarn-session.sh -n 4 -tm 4000 -d), I pulled the Flink > Job

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

To get Flink 1.4.0 installed on Dataproc, I used my own init action. After starting a detached flink session (e.g, HADOOP_CONF_DIR=/etc/hadoop/conf /usr/lib/flink/bin/yarn-session.sh -n 4 -tm 4000 -d), I pulled the Flink Job Manager address and port from the Application Master web UI. After that, I

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Great !!! Thanks for the update, I will close the vote then. Regards JB On 02/15/2018 11:45 PM, Ben Sidhom wrote: > I just successfully ran the quickstart on Flink 1.4.0 on Dataproc. Should be > good to go. > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Thanks Ben!! Did you by chance preserve a record of how you did this, for posterity? I'm also wondering whether it required extra shading, or the quickstart instructions worked out of the box. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:45 PM Ben Sidhom wrote: > I just successfully ran the quickstart on Flink 1.

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Thanks! Sounds like third RC is the winner :) On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Ben Sidhom wrote: > I just successfully ran the quickstart on Flink 1.4.0 on Dataproc. Should > be good to go. > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > >> Luke said he tested Flink locall

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

I just successfully ran the quickstart on Flink 1.4.0 on Dataproc. Should be good to go. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:21 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Luke said he tested Flink locally. So, we have to test on a Yarn cluster. > > Regards > JB > > On 02/15/2018 06:16 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > > I c

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Luke said he tested Flink locally. So, we have to test on a Yarn cluster. Regards JB On 02/15/2018 06:16 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > I count enough votes :) So sounds like someone needs to verify Flink 1.4 > quickstart, and then we're ready? > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Robert Bradshaw

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

I count enough votes :) So sounds like someone needs to verify Flink 1.4 quickstart, and then we're ready? On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > +1 (binding) pending Flink verification. I have checked the signatures > and checksums of the artifacts, and that it agrees with co

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

+1 (binding) pending Flink verification. I have checked the signatures and checksums of the artifacts, and that it agrees with commit 67b5e1bab25d284cdac2127b47f44acc8e83499e on github *except* for 76 places where -SNAPSHOT was removed. FWIW, http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution now reco

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

+1 Thank you JB and thank you everyone for doing the validations. On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > Thanks Kenn. I retract my -1, but then someone must verify it with Flink > 1.4. I might give it a shot tomorrow (installing Flink 1.4 on Dataproc). > > On Wed, Feb 14, 20

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Thanks Kenn. I retract my -1, but then someone must verify it with Flink 1.4. I might give it a shot tomorrow (installing Flink 1.4 on Dataproc). On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:53 PM Reuven Lax wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Alan Myrvold > wrote: > >> +1 Validated java q

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

+1 (binding) On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Alan Myrvold wrote: > +1 Validated java quickstarts for direct, dataflow, apex, flink, and spark. > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Lukasz Cwik wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> Validated several quickstarts including the regression that I originally

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

The FlinkRunner on the release-2.3.0 branch explicitly specifies Flink version 1.4.0. I think your initialization action is the culprit. On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote: > Tentative -1. > > I tried to validate quickstart on Flink on a Dataproc cluster and ran into > a co

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Tentative -1. I tried to validate quickstart on Flink on a Dataproc cluster and ran into a couple of issues. Here's the script I followed: $ curl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/dataproc-initialization-actions/master/flink/flink.sh -o flink.sh $ gsutil cp flink.sh gs://my_bu

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

+1, Validated Python - Mobile game walkthrough, Python - Quickstart (Streaming Alpha). On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Alan Myrvold wrote: > +1 Validated java quickstarts for direct, dataflow, apex, flink, and spark. > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Lukasz Cwik wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

+1 Validated java quickstarts for direct, dataflow, apex, flink, and spark. On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Lukasz Cwik wrote: > +1 (binding) > Validated several quickstarts including the regression that I originally > reported with Spark. > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:34 AM, Ismaël Mejía wrot

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

+1 (binding) Validated several quickstarts including the regression that I originally reported with Spark. On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:34 AM, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Validated SHAs + tag vs source.zip file. > Run mvn clean install -Prelease OK > Validated that the 3 regressions repo

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

+1 (binding) Validated SHAs + tag vs source.zip file. Run mvn clean install -Prelease OK Validated that the 3 regressions reported for RC1 were fixed. Run Nexmark on Direct/Flink runner on local mode, no regressions now. Installed python version on virtualenv and run local wordcount with success.

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

+1 (binding) Tested the Spark runner (with wordcount example and beam samples) Tested the performance of the direct runner I just updated the spreadsheet. Regards JB On 02/11/2018 06:33 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for th

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Gently reminder for the vote, we have only +1 (non binding) vote for now. Regards JB On 02/11/2018 06:33 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #3 for the version 2.3.0, as > follows: > > [ ] +1, Approve the release > [ ] -1, Do not ap

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Hi guys, as discussed, I created a staging repository extension containing the hadoop-input-format artifact: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1029/ Regards JB On 02/11/2018 06:33 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Please review and vote on the re

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Hi Pawel, Just saw your messages on Slack. Let's try to identify the issue first. Regards JB On 02/12/2018 07:23 PM, Pawel Bartoszek wrote: > I wanted to verify that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3186 fixes > my > original problem described in the ticket against 2.3.0 RC. However

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

I wanted to verify that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3186 fixes my original problem described in the ticket against 2.3.0 RC. However I run into protobuf problems when deploying to flink 1.3.2. I posted exceptions on slack #general channel. I cannot deploy my job anymore. Cheers, Paw

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

bq. is OK with staging repo extension ? +1 on using the above approach. Cheers

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Filled https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3692 JB is adding the fix. Thanks a lot for reporting this issue Neville and my excuses to everyone for this silly mistake. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > you can't once you closed the staging repo > > > Romain Manni-

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

It's possible but not on the existing staging repo (as it's already closed). I can create an new staging repo, just containing the module. Regards JB On 02/12/2018 05:32 PM, Reuven Lax wrote: > If it's possible to just publish the module separately, that seems better > than RC4 > > On Mon, Feb

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

you can't once you closed the staging repo Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | B

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

If it's possible to just publish the module separately, that seems better than RC4 On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Sorry the skip was an error while merging this module with the tests > during the move to Java 1.8. I will create a JIRA + PR, but wonder if > we can somehow

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Sorry the skip was an error while merging this module with the tests during the move to Java 1.8. I will create a JIRA + PR, but wonder if we can somehow just publish this artifact to avoid creating a new RC+vote.. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > But that's it: depl

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

If team agree, I can fix the deploy skip and create a staging repo extending the existing one just containing the IO. It's a mistake when we have cleanup the java8 modules. Should I create a RC4 or everyone is OK with staging repo extension ? Regards JB On 02/12/2018 05:10 PM, Neville Li wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

But that's it: deploy skip is set to the module, so it's expected. Regards JB On 02/12/2018 05:21 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > oops sorry, read too fast (thanks to not align artifactId and folder names > ;)): > deploy#skip=true in the module :) > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

It's in the IO parent module: https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/release-2.3.0/sdks/java/io/pom.xml#L55 Regards JB On 02/12/2018 05:19 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > it is not in the parent modules so completely skipped from the reactor > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

oops sorry, read too fast (thanks to not align artifactId and folder names ;)): deploy#skip=true in the module :) Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

it is not in the parent modules so completely skipped from the reactor Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Hi Neville, Let me take a look on the profile used for the release:perform. I'll keep you posted. Regards JB On 02/12/2018 05:10 PM, Neville Li wrote: > I don't see a beam-sdks-java-io-hadoop-input-format artifact in the staging > repo, but the Maven module still exists: > https://github.com/ap

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

I don't see a beam-sdks-java-io-hadoop-input-format artifact in the staging repo, but the Maven module still exists: https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.3.0-RC3/sdks/java/io/hadoop-input-format Was it not published by mistake? We still have code that depends on this. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Ok, checked custom jobs on spark and direct runners + -parameters is usable + some advanced sdk-core integration usages (outside runners) - not sure where it fits the spreadsheet though. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

Reminder: validation spreadsheet at https://s.apache.org/beam-2.3.0-release-validation . It'd be good to accompany votes by specifying in the spreadsheet what has been validated. On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 7:57 AM Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > +1 > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau

Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.0, release candidate #3

+1 Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book