Those are the diffs I see (look like meta-data) only: https://ibb.co/xgjDYVR
And it's clear that flit 3.9.0 was used - not the pinned 3.10.0 to generate the package. It somehow looks like rc2 was not replaced with rc3 generated with the new tag. Do you see other differences Jens (BTW. `diffoscope` is a fantastic tool for comparing packages etc) - I have not checked other packages - only the FAB ones, maybe there are other differences. J. On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:21 PM Hussein Awala <huss...@awala.fr> wrote: > +1 (binding) checked signatures, checksums and licences. > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:13 PM Jens Scheffler <j_scheff...@gmx.de.invalid> > wrote: > > > +1 for reproducibility issue. I can also confirm that only minor diff is > > in - but not only meta data - I see also code differences in fab > > provider. So I am not toally conviced. > > > > So my test results are: > > > > +0 (binding) - Checked SVN, Check in Docker, Licenses, Signatures > > > > Reproducible package build tested but test failedfor both fab and amazon > > > > On 04.11.24 19:14, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > > I still see the same reproducibility issue that should have been > handled > > by > > > pinning flit. I am not sure now why it did not work again, it might > need > > a > > > bit of investigation. But I manually compared the differences and > > > the differences are only in metadata, so even if the reproducibility > > check > > > does not pass, it's not a "hard" condition. Licences, checksum, > > signatures > > > work. I do not want this to hold the 2.10.3 Airflow release. > > > The amazon provider needs common.compat provider as well for some cases > > as > > > noted by Pavan in > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615#issuecomment-2453500628 > > - it > > > will need common.compat provider release as well for some, and since > this > > > one is not blocking, then I think we should make next rc. > > > > > > So: > > > > > > +1 for FAB provider > > > -1 for amazon provider. > > > > > > We should closely look and do the next release together with Elad to > > > address the reproducibility issue, though. > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 12:46 PM Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> +1 non-binding. Tested my changes > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Wei > > >> > > >>> On Nov 3, 2024, at 4:34 PM, Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Correction vote will end on November 04, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until > 3 > > >>> binding +1 votes have been received. > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:31 AM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hey all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I have just cut rc3 Airflow Providers packages. This email is > calling > > a > > >>>> vote on the release, > > >>>> which will last for 24 hours - which means that it will end on > > November > > >>>> 06, 2024 08:30 AM UTC and until 3 binding +1 votes have been > received. > > >>>> > > >>>> Consider this my (binding) +1. > > >>>> > > >>>> Airflow Providers are available at: > > >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/airflow/providers/ > > >>>> > > >>>> *apache-airflow-providers-<PROVIDER>-*.tar.gz* are the binary > > >>>> Python "sdist" release - they are also official "sources" for the > > >>>> provider packages. > > >>>> > > >>>> *apache_airflow_providers_<PROVIDER>-*.whl are the binary > > >>>> Python "wheel" release. > > >>>> > > >>>> The test procedure for PMC members is described in > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-pmc-members > > >>>> The test procedure for and Contributors who would like to test this > RC > > >> is > > >>>> described in: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/README_RELEASE_PROVIDER_PACKAGES.md#verify-the-release-candidate-by-contributors > > >>>> > > >>>> Public keys are available at: > > >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/airflow/KEYS > > >>>> > > >>>> Please vote accordingly: > > >>>> > > >>>> [ ] +1 approve > > >>>> [ ] +0 no opinion > > >>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > >>>> > > >>>> Only votes from PMC members are binding, but members of the > community > > >> are > > >>>> encouraged to test the release and vote with "(non-binding)". > > >>>> > > >>>> Please note that the version number excludes the 'rcX' string. > > >>>> This will allow us to rename the artifact without modifying > > >>>> the artifact checksums when we actually release. > > >>>> > > >>>> The status of testing the providers by the community is kept here: > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/43615 > > >>>> > > >>>> The issue is also the easiest way to see important PRs included in > the > > >> RC > > >>>> candidates. > > >>>> Detailed changelog for the providers will be published in the > > >>>> documentation after the > > >>>> RC candidates are released. > > >>>> > > >>>> You can find the RC packages in PyPI following these links: > > >>>> > > >>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-amazon/9.1.0rc3/ > > >>>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow-providers-fab/1.5.0rc3/ > > >>>> > > >>>> Cheers, > > >>>> Elad Kalif > > >>>> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > >> > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > > > >
