airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maxime Beauchemin <maximebeauche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Airflow 1.8.2 based on Airflow 1.8.2 RC2
Date Mon, 31 Jul 2017 22:59:58 GMT
Alright so here's the INSTALL file:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2492

I'm thinking I'll cherry pick this in the 1.8-test branch and tar the whole
repo, crank up the RC number and publish to the same location as before.

Am I on the right track?

Max

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Chris Riccomini <criccomini@apache.org>
wrote:

> Oky.. then I guess we can address the feedback above. Owe you some beers,
> Max.
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yep
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 27 Jul 2017, at 19:00, Maxime Beauchemin <
> maximebeauchemin@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I need to re-package it with build instructions. I'm pretty sure this
> > means
> > > another vote. I have time carved up to work on this today/tomorrow.
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Chris Riccomini <
> criccomini@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> IMO, given the level of effort for 1.8.2, and how long it's taken, we
> > >> should not be re-voting right now unless something horrific happened
> to
> > the
> > >> release.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Pavel Martynov <mr.xkurt@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi, folks!
> > >>>
> > >>> AIRFLOW-935 issue marked as resolved and fix version is 1.8.2, but
> this
> > >>> commit contained in master branch only and not tagged by 1.8.2rc2.
> > >>> Can fix of this issue be released in 1.8.2?
> > >>>
> > >>> 2017-07-26 2:27 GMT+03:00 George Leslie-Waksman <
> > >>> george@cloverhealth.com.invalid>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I've checked and we are no longer relying on the previous
> > >>>> LatestOnlyOperator behavior for any of our DAGs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This is not a dealbreaker (though I will need to keep it in mind).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks for asking,
> > >>>> --George
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM Maxime Beauchemin <
> > >>>> maximebeauchemin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> [AIRFLOW-1296] is part of 1.8.2.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Is this a dealbreaker for 1.8.2?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Max
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:40 PM, George Leslie-Waksman <
> > >>>>> george@cloverhealth.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I hope that it's not too late for me to chime in but there
is a
> > >>>> breaking
> > >>>>>> change in the behavior of LatestOnlyOperator.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The change was introduced in
> > >>>>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/2365
> > >>>>>> Change: 333e0b3 [AIRFLOW-1296] Propagate SKIPPED to all
downstream
> > >>>> tasks
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Prior to this change, the LatestOnlyOperator would skip
direct
> > >>>> downstream
> > >>>>>> but not indirect downstream; now it skips indirect downstream.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This breaks the use of LatestOnlyOperator with TriggerRules
that
> do
> > >>> not
> > >>>>>> propagate skips.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --George
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:08 PM Maxime Beauchemin <
> > >>>>>> maximebeauchemin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think I'm gathering a good picture of what is expected
here.
> > >> I'll
> > >>>> try
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>> update the Confluence page as I go.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I'm hoping to get started tomorrow and package it early
next
> > >> week.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Max
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 6:16 PM, siddharth anand <
> > >>> sanand@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> FYI, can anyone pictorially describe the release
process (and
> > >>> post
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>> the apache airflow wiki)? I think that would eliminate
a lot of
> > >>>>>> confusion
> > >>>>>>>> in the future and avoid a rehash of this email
thread on the
> > >> next
> > >>>>>>> release.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> -s
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Hitesh Shah <
> > >> hitesh@apache.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> To add, the main source tarball should have
instructions to
> > >>>>> generate
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> sdist and bdist versions. Additionally, as
part of the
> > >> release
> > >>>>>> process
> > >>>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>> the plan is to publish to pypi (after the IPMC
vote
> > >> succeeds),
> > >>>> then
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> appropriate bits also need to be verified/voted
upon. There
> > >> are
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>>>>> exactly
> > >>>>>>>>> counted as the official release bits but they
do need to be
> > >>>>> verified
> > >>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>> part of the voting process to ensure that the
bits do indeed
> > >>> map
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> source release, license/notice files are correct,
etc.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> thanks
> > >>>>>>>>> -- Hitesh
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Bolke de
Bruin <
> > >>>>> bdbruin@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Hitesh. We discussed it with John
Ament on the IPMC.
> > >>>>> Python
> > >>>>>>> has
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> notion of 3 types of distributions, “source”,
“sdist”,
> > >>> “bdist”,
> > >>>>>>>> contrary
> > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> Java that knows only two (source, bdist).
We used to vote
> > >> on
> > >>>>>> “sdist”,
> > >>>>>>>>> which
> > >>>>>>>>>> was deemed incorrect.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> So, Max, indeed we need to vote on a tar.gz
that contains
> > >>> build
> > >>>>>>>>>> instructions in INSTALL to get to “sdist”.
The build
> > >>>> instructions
> > >>>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>>>> also contain instruction how to run the
license checks by
> > >>>> Apache
> > >>>>>> Rat.
> > >>>>>>>>> Most
> > >>>>>>>>>> of the work probably goes in the build
instructions and
> > >>>> verifying
> > >>>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>>>>> work, but it should not be much.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Any other clarification required?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Bolke
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> with best regards, Pavel Martynov
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>

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