On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 7:40 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > in future releases we should
> > institute a minimum 24-hour "quiet period" after any community
> > feedback on a release candidate to allow issues to be examined
> > further.
>
> I agree with this. I'll do so when I do a release manager in
> the future.
>
> > To be able to release more often, two things have to happen:
> >
> > * More PMC members must engage with the release management role,
> > process, and tools
> > * Continued improvements to release tooling to make the process less
> > painful for the release manager. For example, it seems we may want to
> > find a different place than Bintray to host binary artifacts
> > temporarily during release votes
>
> My opinion that we need to build nightly release system.
>
> It uses dev/release/NN-*.sh to build .tar.gz and binary
> artifacts from the .tar.gz.
> It also uses dev/release/verify-release-candidate.* to
> verify build .tar.gz and binary artifacts.
> It also uses dev/release/post-NN-*.sh to do post release
> tasks. (Some tasks such as uploading a package to packaging
> system will be dry-run.)
>

I agree that having a turn-key release system that's capable of
producing nightly packages is the way to do. That way any problems
that would block a release will come up as they happen rather than
piling up until the very end like they are now.

> I needed 10 or more changes for dev/release/ to create
> 0.14.0 RC0. (Some of them are still in my local stashes. I
> don't have time to create pull requests for them
> yet. Because I postponed some tasks of my main
> business. I'll create pull requests after I finished the
> postponed tasks of my main business.)
>

Thanks. I'll follow up on the 0.14.1/0.15.0 thread -- since we need to
release again soon because of problems with 0.14.0 please let us know
what patches will be needed to make another release.

> If we fix problems related to dev/release/ in our normal
> development process, release process will be less painful.
>
> The biggest problem for 0.14.0 RC0 is java/pom.xml related:
>   https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4717
>
> It was difficult for me because I don't have Java
> knowledge. Release manager needs help from many developers
> because release manager may not have knowledge of all
> supported languages. Apache Arrow supports 10 over
> languages.
>
>
> For Bintray API limit problem, we'll be able to resolve it.
> I was added to https://bintray.com/apache/ members:
>
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18698
>
> I'll be able to use Bintray API without limitation in the
> future. Release managers should also request the same thing.
>

This is good, I will add myself. Other PMC members should also add themselves.

>
> Thanks,
> --
> kou
>
> In <CAJPUwMBRzYQ=hbVwFuPYAB-O=lsowxqxidjapc_cofguksj...@mail.gmail.com>
>   "[DISCUSS] Release cadence and release vote conventions" on Sat, 6 Jul 2019 
> 16:28:50 -0500,
>   Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hi folks,
> >
> > As a reminder, particularly since we have many new community members
> > (some of whom have never been involved with an ASF project before),
> > releases are approved exclusively by the PMC and in general releases
> > cannot be vetoed. In spite of that, we strive to make releases that
> > have unanimous (either by explicit +1 or lazy consent) support of the
> > PMC. So it is better to have unanimous 5 +1 votes than 6 +1 votes with
> > a -1 dissenting vote.
> >
> > On the 0.14.0 vote, as with previous release votes, some issues with
> > the release were raised by members of the community, whether build or
> > test-related problems or other failures. Technically speaking, such
> > issues have no _direct_ bearing on whether a release vote passes, only
> > on whether PMC members vote +1, 0, or -1. A PMC member is allowed to
> > change their vote based on new information -- for example, if I voted
> > +1 on a release and then someone reported a serious licensing issue,
> > then I would revise my vote to -1.
> >
> > On the RC0 vote thread, Jacques wrote [1]
> >
> > "A release vote should last until we arrive at consensus. When an
> > issue is potentially identified, those that have voted should be given
> > ample time to change their vote and others that may have been lazy
> > consenters should be given time to chime in. There is no maximum
> > amount of time a vote can be open. Allowing at least 24 hours after an
> > objection is raised is a pretty minimum expectation unless the
> > objector removes their objection.
> >
> > Note that Apache is more focused on consensus than timing (as opposed to
> > virtually other other organizations in the world)."
> >
> > I agree with this and my opinion is that in future releases we should
> > institute a minimum 24-hour "quiet period" after any community
> > feedback on a release candidate to allow issues to be examined
> > further. If someone finds a potential problem, and no negative votes
> > are cast or changed, then the vote can close.
> >
> > As a related matter, it seems clear to me that Apache Arrow should
> > have more frequent releases. I think this would decrease pressure on
> > developers and users alike. While we've made strides to improve the
> > tooling for release management (big thanks to Kou, Yosuke, Krisztian,
> > and others), there is still quite some labor involved and potential
> > for issues (e.g. API rate limiting for binary artifacts on Bintray).
> >
> > To be able to release more often, two things have to happen:
> >
> > * More PMC members must engage with the release management role,
> > process, and tools
> > * Continued improvements to release tooling to make the process less
> > painful for the release manager. For example, it seems we may want to
> > find a different place than Bintray to host binary artifacts
> > temporarily during release votes
> >
> > Any other ideas for things we can do to improve the process and
> > cadence of releases?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Wes
> >
> > [1]: 
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/be6210e97b838494a5516dad6408f479efe4c98aff805000597c0196@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E

Reply via email to