Ah, and here's one on general@incubator specifically about RCs: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c4afcf0807d71f844d912a7e5fe6b481f0779bdcf88ccf9abe50a160@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
Kenn On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:49 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > I'd suggest looking for experience beyond Beam and Airflow. I don't see > links to some relevant threads. > > Here's one from legal-discuss@ about binary channels and how they relate > to source releases: > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d578819f1afa6b8fb697ea72083e0fb05e43938a23d6e7bb804069b8@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > Here's one from the incubator about how RCs and tags relate to ASF release > policy: > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/982077ef279e50b260d302d96685e40be6fcabdb0bd43d519621cf27@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E > > (apologies if these are duplicate links - I re-scanned the thread and did > not spot them) > > Kenn > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:43 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 5:24 PM Michael Luckey <adude3...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks Ahmet for calling out to the airflow folks. I believe, I am able >> to follow their argument. So from my point of view I do not have an issue >> with apache policy. But honestly still trying to wrap my head around >> Roberts concern with rebuilding/resigning. Currently, our actual release is >> only a tag on source repo and promoting artefacts. Do not yet understand >> how that needs to change to get PyPi included. >> >> It's not a big change, but let me clarify. >> >> Currently our release preparation goes something like this: >> >> 1) Check out the repo, update the versions to 2.x, build and sign the >> artifacts. >> 2) Announce these artifacts as rcN >> 2a) Push the artifacts to SVN dev/... >> 2b) Push artifacts to the apache maven repository. >> 3) Depending on vote, go back to step (1) or forward to step (4). >> 4) Copy these artifacts as the actual release. >> >> Now if we just try to add (2c) Push these artifacts to Pypi, it will >> be treated (by pypi's tooling, anyone who downloads the tarball, ...) >> as an actual release. You also can't re-push a tarball with the same >> name and different contents (the idea being that named releases should >> never change). So we'd need to change step (1) to update the version >> to 2.x.rcN *and* add a step in (4) to update the version to 2.x (no rc >> suffix), rebuild, resign before publishing. >> >> As mentioned, possibly the rcN suffix could be part of the building >> step for Python. >> >> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:33 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Michael, Max and other folks who are concerned about the compatibility >> with the apache release policy. Does the information in this thread >> sufficiently address your concerns? Especially the part where, the rc >> artifacts will be protected by a flag (i.e. --pre) from general consumption. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 3:59 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:11 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > This conversation get quite Python centric. Is there a similar need >> for Java? >> >>> >> >>> I think Java is already covered. Go is a different story (but the even >> >>> versioning and releasing is being worked out). >> >>> >> >>> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:54 AM Robert Bradshaw < >> rober...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> If we can, by the apache guidelines, post RCs to pypy that is >> >>> >> definitely the way to go. (Note that test.pypi is for developing >> >>> >> against the pypi interface, not for pushing anything real.) The >> caveat >> >>> >> about naming these with rcN in the version number still applies >> >>> >> (that's how pypi guards them against non-explicit installs). >> >>> > >> >>> > Related to the caveat, I believe this can be easily scripted or >> even made part of the travis/wheels pipeline to take the release branch, >> edit the version string in place to add rc, and build the necessary files. >> >>> >> >>> Yes. But the resulting artifacts would have to be rebuilt (and >> >>> re-signed) without the version edit for the actual release. (Well, we >> >>> could possibly edit the artifacts rather than rebuild them.) And >> >>> pushing un-edited ones early would be really bad. (It's the classic >> >>> tension of whether a pre-release should be marked internally or >> >>> externally, re-publishing a new set of bits for the actual release or >> >>> re-using version numbers for different sets of bits. Pypi does one, >> >>> apache does another...) >> >>> >> >>> >> The advantage is that a user can do "pip install --pre >> apache-beam" to >> >>> >> get the latest rc rather than "pip install >> >>> >> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/changing/and/ephemeral/path"; >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:34 PM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Aw that's interesting! >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > I think, with these considerations, I am only marginally more >> inclined towards publishing to test.pypi. That would make me a +0.9 on >> publishing RCs to the main pip repo then. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Thanks for doing the research Ahmet. :) >> >>> >> > Best >> >>> >> > -P >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:53 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> I asked to Airflow folks about this. See [1] for the full >> response and a link to one of their RC emails. To summarize their position >> (specifically for pypi) is: Unless a user does something explicit (such as >> using a flag, or explicitly requesting an rc release), pip install will not >> serve RC binaries. And that is compatible with RC section of >> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-types >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Ahmet >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> [1] >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f1f342332c1e180f57d60285bebe614ffa77bb53c4f74c4cbc049096@%3Cdev.airflow.apache.org%3E >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:38 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The incremental value of publishing python artifacts to a >> separate place but not to actual pypi listing will be low. Users can >> already download RC artifacts, or even pip install from http location >> directly. I think the incremental value will be low, because for a user or >> a downstream library to test with Beam RCs using their usual ways will >> still require them to get other dependencies from the regular pypi listing. >> That would mean they need to change their setup to test with beam rcs, >> which is the same state as today. There will be some incremental value of >> putting them in more obvious places (e.g. pypi test repository). I would >> rather not complicate the release process for doing this. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:25 PM Kenneth Knowles < >> k...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> Pip is also able to be pointed at any raw hosted directory >> for the install, right? So we could publish RCs or snapshots somewhere with >> more obvious caveats and not interfere with the pypi list of actual >> releases. Much like the Java snapshots are stored in a separate opt-in >> repository. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> Kenn >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 5:39 AM Maximilian Michels < >> m...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> > wouldn't that be in conflict with Apache release policy >> [1] ? >> >>> >> >>>>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> Indeed, advertising pre-release artifacts is against ASF >> rules. For >> >>> >> >>>>> example, Flink was asked to remove a link to the Maven >> snapshot >> >>> >> >>>>> repository from their download page. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> However, that does not mean we cannot publish Python >> artifacts. We just >> >>> >> >>>>> have to clearly mark them for developers only and not >> advertise them >> >>> >> >>>>> alongside with the official releases. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> -Max >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> On 25.04.19 10:23, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> > Don't we push java artifacts to maven repositories as part >> of the RC >> >>> >> >>>>> > process? And completely unvetted snapshots? (Or is this OK >> because >> >>> >> >>>>> > they are special opt-in apache-only ones?) >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>> > I am generally in favor of the idea, but would like to >> avoid increased >> >>> >> >>>>> > toil on the release manager. >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>> > One potential hitch I see is that current release process >> updates the >> >>> >> >>>>> > versions to x.y.z (no RC or other pre-release indicator in >> the version >> >>> >> >>>>> > number) whereas pypi (and other systems) typically expect >> distinct >> >>> >> >>>>> > (recognizable) version numbers for each attempt, and only >> the actual >> >>> >> >>>>> > final result has the actual final release version. >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:38 AM Ahmet Altay < >> al...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> I do not know the answer.I believe this will be similar >> to sharing the RC artifacts for validation purposes and would not be a >> formal release by itself. But I am not an expert and I hope others will >> share their opinions. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> I quickly searched pypi for apache projects and found at >> least airflow [1] and libcloud [2] are publishing rc artifacts to pypi. We >> can reach out to those communities and learn about their processes. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> Ahmet >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> [1] https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow/#history >> >>> >> >>>>> >> [2] https://pypi.org/project/apache-libcloud/#history >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 6:15 PM Michael Luckey < >> adude3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>> wouldn't that be in conflict with Apache release policy >> [1] ? >> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html >> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:35 AM Alan Myrvold < >> amyrv...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> Great idea. I like the RC candidates to follow as much >> as the release artifact process as possible. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ahmet Altay < >> al...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> To clarify my proposal, I am proposing publishing to >> the production pypi repository with an rc tag in the version. And in turn >> allow users to depend on beam's rc version + all the other regular >> dependencies users would have directly from pypi. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> Publishing to test pypi repo would also be helpful if >> test pypi repo also mirrors other packages that exist in the production >> pypi repository. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:12 PM Pablo Estrada < >> pabl...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> I think this is a great idea. A way of doing it for >> python would be by using the test repository for PyPi[1], and that way we >> would not have to do an official PyPi release, but still would be able to >> install it with pip (by passing an extra flag), and test. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> In fact, there are some Beam artifacts already in >> there[2]. At some point I looked into this, but couldn't figure out who has >> access/the password for it. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> I also don't know who owns beam package in test pypi >> repo. Does anybody know? >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> In short: +1, and I would suggest using the test PyPi >> repo to avoid publishing to the main PyPi repo. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> Best >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> -P. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://test.pypi.org/ >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> [2] https://test.pypi.org/project/apache-beam/ >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:04 PM Ahmet Altay < >> al...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think about the idea of publishing >> pre-release artifacts as part of the RC emails? >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> For Python this would translate into publishing the >> same artifacts from RC email with a version like "2.X.0rcY" to pypi. I do >> not know, but I am guessing we can do a similar thing with Maven central >> for Java artifacts as well. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> Advantages would be: >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> - Allow end users to validate RCs for their own >> purposes using the same exact process they will normally use. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> - Enable early-adaptors to start using RC releases >> early on in the release cycle if that is what they would like to do. This >> will in turn reduce time pressure on some releases. Especially for cases >> like someone needs a release to be finalized for an upcoming event. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> There will also be disadvantages, some I could think >> of: >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> - Users could request support for RC artifacts. >> Hopefully in the form of feedback for us to improve the release. But it >> could also be in the form of folks using RC artifacts for production for a >> long time. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> - It will add toil to the current release process, >> there will be one more step for each RC. I think for python this will be a >> small step but nevertheless it will be additional work. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> For an example of this, you can take a look at >> tensorflow releases. For 1.13 there were 3 pre-releases [1]. >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> Ahmet >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>>> [1] https://pypi.org/project/tensorflow/#history >> >
