Hi Luke, I tested the following build:
./gradlew publishToMavenLocal -PisRelease --no-parallel The artifacts are present in my .m2/repository. For instance, I can see: .m2/repository/org/apache/beam/beam-sdks-java-core/2.5.0$ ls -l total 16256 beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.jar beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.jar.asc beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-javadoc.jar beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-javadoc.jar.asc beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.pom beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.pom.asc beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-sources.jar beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-sources.jar.asc beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-tests.jar beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-tests.jar.asc beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-test-sources.jar beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0-test-sources.jar.asc 1. The signatures are OK: gpg --verify beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.jar.asc beam-sdks-java-core-2.5.0.jar gpg: Signature made jeu. 24 mai 2018 16:55:11 CEST gpg: using RSA key 1AA8CF92D409A73393D0B736BFF2EE42C8282E76 gpg: Good signature from "Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>" [unknown] 2. The pom looks correct to me but it's not optimal because 2.1. There's no parent definition, so each pom duplicate the same configurations (like scm, license, etc) 2.2. There's no Maven plugin configuration, even if it's not used for the build, other tools can parse and use plugin configuration (like the source/target version, etc). So, even if it's not optimal, the pom looks overall good. I think it makes sense to move forward on the release as it is right now. If there's no objection, I will start the release process during the week end. By the way, it would be good to verify that the Maven build is still working. Ismaël and I fixed new issues on the Maven build. At some point, after the 2.5.0 release, we have to state to remove the Maven build (after a vote ;)). Thanks, Regards JB On 25/05/2018 01:34, Lukasz Cwik wrote: > The license inclusion issue that was brought up on the thread has been > resolved https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4393. > > JB, you find any other release related issues? > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:33 AM Lukasz Cwik <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I believe JB is referring > to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4060 > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:16 AM Scott Wegner <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > J.B., can you give any context on what metadata is missing? Is > there a JIRA? > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:30 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi, > > The build was OK yesterday but the maven-metadata is still > missing. > > That's the point to fix before being able to move forward > on the release. > > I gonna tackle this later today. > > Regards > JB > > On 05/18/2018 02:41 AM, Ahmet Altay wrote: > > Hi JB and all, > > > > I wanted to follow up on my previous email. The python > streaming issue I > > mentioned is resolved and removed from the blocker list. > Blocker list is empty > > now. You can go ahead with the release branch cut when you > are ready. > > > > Thank you, > > Ahmet > > > > > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > just to let you know that the build fully passed on my > box. > > > > I'm testing the artifacts right now. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 06/04/2018 10:48, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > Apache Beam 2.4.0 has been released on March 20th. > > > > According to our cycle of release (roughly 6 > weeks), we should think > > about 2.5.0. > > > > I'm volunteer to tackle this release. > > > > I'm proposing the following items: > > > > 1. We start the Jira triage now, up to Tuesday > > 2. I would like to cut the release on Tuesday > night (Europe time) > > 2bis. I think it's wiser to still use Maven for > this release. Do you > > think we > > will be ready to try a release with Gradle ? > > > > After this release, I would like a discussion about: > > 1. Gradle release (if we release 2.5.0 with Maven) > > 2. Isolate release cycle per Beam part. I think it > would be interesting > > to have > > different release cycle: SDKs, DSLs, Runners, IOs. > That's another > > discussion, I > > will start a thread about that. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré [email protected] http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
