airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Riccomini <criccom...@apache.org>
Subject [CANCEL] [VOTE] Release Airflow 1.8.1 based on Airflow 1.8.1 RC0
Date Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:28:38 GMT
Canceling this vote due to various concerns and bug fixes listed below.
Will start an RC1 vote shortly.

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 23 Apr 2017, at 03:46, Hitesh Shah <hitesh@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Chris Riccomini <criccomini@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Version in pkg-info has an rc0 notation. It should just be
> >> 1.8.1-incubating.
> >>
> >> This is a bit tricky to do with Python builds. I don't really want to
> keep
> >> building RCs with the exact same version number. We bake these RCs in
> real
> >> environments, so we need to version them with something that
> distinguishes
> >> one from another. Once we set the version, that propagates into the
> >> pkg-info. The plan is to rebuild the final RC that passes without the rc
> >> notation, so the release doesn't contain it.
> >>
> >>
> > I understand the rationale but this means that there is a potential
> > difference in what is being voted upon and what is eventually being
> > published as a release.
> >
> > thanks
> > -- Hitesh
>
> Hi Hitesh,
>
> This is a chicken and egg problem. If we put a non release 1.8.1 online
> users will download  and install it. An update to this package will not
> trigger an upgrade on the user's side and it is hard to recognize (one will
> need to compare signature). It puts them at risk.
>
> Do you know how other python projects solved this? I will reach out to the
> libcloud guys and ask them how they did it (also python).
>
> Bolke

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message