[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating RC #1

: Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 at 14:10 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating To: <general@incubator.apache.org> The specified duration is over, I'm hereby closing the vote. Thanks a lot for your participation! I'll tally the results i

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

The specified duration is over, I'm hereby closing the vote. Thanks a lot for your participation! I'll tally the results in a separate thread. Cheers, Aljoscha On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 at 21:26 John D. Ament wrote: > I'm going to switch my vote to +1 for the release. Other

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

I'm going to switch my vote to +1 for the release. Other issues are issues outside of this podling's domain. John On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 9:31 AM John D. Ament wrote: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:23 AM Justin Mclean > wrote: > > Hi, > > > So,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

> On Oct 30, 2016, at 8:04 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > Craig, > > Your definition matches my definition from 3 years ago, which I had used > for a long while until someone told me I'm wrong. Are you on legal > discuss? Let's move this over there. Even better, there

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Craig, Your definition matches my definition from 3 years ago, which I had used for a long while until someone told me I'm wrong. Are you on legal discuss? Let's move this over there. On Oct 30, 2016 10:50, "Craig Russell" wrote: > On Oct 30, 2016, at 6:03 AM, John

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

> On Oct 30, 2016, at 6:03 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:53 PM Craig Russell > wrote: > >> >>> On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:53 PM Craig Russell wrote: > > > On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >>> -1 due to the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi Aljoscha, yes, please, create a Jira, I will take a look. Thanks, Regards JB On 10/29/2016 09:12 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and accept that a rat check won't work on the release? Should I create an issue for updating to the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

> On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>> -1 due to the kinesis library issue. >> >> Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the >>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > -1 due to the kinesis library issue. > > Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the > kinesis library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I thought > this would cover

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi, > -1 due to the kinesis library issue. Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the kinesis library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I thought this would cover it? [1] Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:23 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and > accept > > that a rat check won't work on the release? > > IMO it’s fine. JFYI you you ran rat manually on the release it shows a few

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi, > So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and accept > that a rat check won't work on the release? IMO it’s fine. JFYI you you ran rat manually on the release it shows a few more hits, but none IMO are cause for concern. It it picked up any source files without

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and accept that a rat check won't work on the release? Should I create an issue for updating to the lastest Apache maven-parent or do you want to do that, JB or Dan? On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 08:54 Jean-Baptiste Onofré

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Agree. Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 29, 2016, 08:23, at 08:23, Dan Halperin wrote: >More on DEPENDENCIES: > >The latest version of Apache's maven-parent explicitly excludes it from >the >RAT check. [0] I see other projects have the same file e,g,. [1]. See >also >the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Yes. Good idea. Anyway the dependency should be optional (build in a dedicated profile or not). Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 29, 2016, 08:22, at 08:22, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: >For the future, we should maybe only build the Kinesis Connector in a >profile. Then it would truly not

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

More on DEPENDENCIES: The latest version of Apache's maven-parent explicitly excludes it from the RAT check. [0] I see other projects have the same file e,g,. [1]. See also the linked issues from the Apache pom [2]. I think that file's presence may be WAI? [0]

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

For the future, we should maybe only build the Kinesis Connector in a profile. Then it would truly not be build. pushed to maven central, etc. For a normal build. On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 08:20 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Thanks Justin. > > Anyway I will double check the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

+1 (binding) Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 28, 2016, 10:58, at 10:58, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: >Hi everyone, >Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam >version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows: >[ ] +1, Approve the release >[ ] -1, Do not approve the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Thanks Justin. Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependency definition. Thanks again Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 29, 2016, 08:18, at 08:18, Justin Mclean wrote: >Hi, > >Changing my vote to +1 (binding). > >> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi, Changing my vote to +1 (binding). > Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope provided, I > don't think it's an issue. In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no nothing about if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could find.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Ah yes that's it. So it's not a project specific thing IMHO. Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 29, 2016, 08:15, at 08:15, Christopher wrote: >I believe the DEPENDENCIES file is produced by the Apache Parent POM's >execution of the maven-remote-resources-plugin, and it is generated

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi Dan Yeah good catch. Default configuration of the release plugin doesn't create such file afair. So we probably have a configuration or other plugins defined in the project. Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct 29, 2016, 08:07, at 08:07, Dan Halperin wrote: >Hi Justin, >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

I believe the DEPENDENCIES file is produced by the Apache Parent POM's execution of the maven-remote-resources-plugin, and it is generated when the 'apache-release' profile is active during a release. On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:07 AM Dan Halperin wrote: > Hi Justin,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi Justin, Thanks for excellent detailed analysis, as usual! 1) Hmm! I do see a file called `DEPENDENCIES` in the source release [0], but it is not checked in [1]. It must be introduced somehow by `mvn release-plugin`, following our release process [2]. To clear up some possible confusion: We

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope provided, I don't think it's an issue. If it's not the case (I gonna check) and the resulting jar embeds the dependency it's an issue. Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only the ones who needs pipelines

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi, > We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list. Yep I read that discussion and it seems to me to be missing the main point. Yes you can’t have Category X software in a release but you can’t have it as a dependancy either unless it’s optional. > The dependency is not embedded

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi John Rat is supposed to run with the release profile. We are going to check that and why DEPENDENCIES file has not been checked. Regarding Kinesis, the dependency should not be embedded in any Beam jar or distribution. The user has to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi Justin We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list. The dependency is not embedded in any Beam distribution or jar file. The users have to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use the Kinesis IO. So I don't see any issue in that case. Agree ? Regards JB ⁣​ On Oct

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi, -1 binding due to incompatible license dependancy. Happy to change my vote if this is shown to not be the case. Everything checks out expect the dependancy of Amazon licensed software which is category X [1] this (closed) JIRA covers it [2] Note that it not enough just to not included the

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi, mvn apache-rat:check fails on your release due to the DEPENDENCIES file not having a header. If you don't need this file, please remove it. I would also recommend leaving apache-rat running all the time to avoid newly introduced issues. In addition, I notice that your build output includes

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

+1 (binding), carrying over from dev vote Sent from my iPhone, Venkatesh > On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:22 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote: > > (repeating my vote on dev@beam https://s.apache.org/AYPs ) > > +1 (binding) > > So far I've successfully checked: > * signatures and digests

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

(repeating my vote on dev@beam https://s.apache.org/AYPs ) +1 (binding) So far I've successfully checked: * signatures and digests * source releases file layouts * matched git tags and commit ids * incubator suffix and disclaimer * NOTICE and LICENSE files * license headers * clean build (Java

[VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi everyone, Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam version 0.3.0-incubating, 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: *