We do tag issues to milestones when the issue is marked as "completed" (as opposed to "not planned") - https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.github/workflows/assign_milestone.yml. So I think using issues is probably about as accurate as using commits.
> It looks like we have 820 with no milestone https://github.com/apache/beam/issues?q=is%3Aissue+no%3Amilestone+is%3Aclosed Most predate the automation, though maybe not all? Some of those may have been closed as "not planned". > This could (should) be automatically discoverable. A (closed) issues is associated with commits which are associated with a release. Today, we just tag issues to the upcoming milestone when they're closed. In theory you could do something more sophisticated using linked commits, but in practice people aren't clean enough about linking commits to issues. Again, this is fixable by automation/enforcement, but I don't think it actually gives us much value beyond what we have today. On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 1:54 PM Robert Bradshaw via dev <dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:35 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Tangentially related: >> >> Long ago, attaching an issue to a release was a mandatory step as part of >> closing. Now I think it is not. Is it automatically happening? It looks >> like we have 820 with no milestone >> https://github.com/apache/beam/issues?q=is%3Aissue+no%3Amilestone+is%3Aclosed >> > > This could (should) be automatically discoverable. A (closed) issues is > associated with commits which are associated with a release. > > >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 1:25 PM Chamikara Jayalath via dev < >> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >> >>> +1 for going by the commits since this is what matters at the end of the >>> day. Also, many issues may not get tagged correctly for a given release due >>> to either the contributor not tagging the issue or due to commits for the >>> issue spanning multiple Beam releases. >>> >>> For example, >>> >>> For all commits in a given release RC: >>> * If we find a Github issue for the commit: add a notice to the Github >>> issue >>> * Else: add the notice to a generic issue for the release including >>> tags for the commit ID, PR author, and the committer who merged the PR. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Cham >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:49 AM Danny McCormick via dev < >>> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I'd probably vote to include both the issue filer and the contributor. >>>> It is pretty equally straightforward - one way to do this would be using >>>> all issues related to that release's milestone and extracting the issue >>>> author and the issue closer. >>>> >>>> This does leave out the (unfortunately sizable) set of contributions >>>> that don't have an associated issue; if we're worried about that, we could >>>> always fall back to anyone with a commit in the last release who doesn't >>>> have an associated issue (aka what I thought we were initially proposing >>>> and what I think Airflow does today). >>>> >>>> I'm pretty much +1 on any sort of automation here, and it certainly can >>>> come in stages :) >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 1:50 PM Johanna Öjeling via dev < >>>> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes that's a good point to include also those who created the issue. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, 19:18 Robert Bradshaw via dev < >>>>> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 7:26 AM Danny McCormick via dev < >>>>>> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> So to summarize, I think there's broad consensus (or at least lazy >>>>>>> consensus) around the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - (1) Updating our release email/guidelines to be more specific >>>>>>> about what we mean by release validation/how to be helpful during this >>>>>>> process. This includes both encouraging validation within each user's >>>>>>> own >>>>>>> code base and encouraging people to document/share their process of >>>>>>> validation and link it in the release spreadsheet. >>>>>>> - (2) Doing something like what Airflow does (#29424 >>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/29424>) and creating an >>>>>>> issue asking people who have contributed to the current release to help >>>>>>> validate their changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm also +1 on doing both of these. The first bit (updating our >>>>>>> guidelines) is relatively easy - it should just require updating >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/contributor-docs/release-guide.md#vote-and-validate-the-release-candidate >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I took a look at the second piece (copying what Airflow does) to see >>>>>>> if we could just copy their automation, but it looks like it's tied >>>>>>> to airflow breeze >>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/dev/breeze/src/airflow_breeze/provider_issue_TEMPLATE.md.jinja2> >>>>>>> (their repo-specific automation tooling), so we'd probably need to build >>>>>>> the automation ourselves. It shouldn't be terrible, basically we'd want >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> GitHub Action that compares the current release tag with the last >>>>>>> release >>>>>>> tag, grabs all the commits in between, parses them to get the author, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> creates an issue with that data, but it does represent more effort than >>>>>>> just updating a markdown file. There might even be an existing Action >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> can help with this, I haven't looked too hard. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I was thinking along the lines of a script that would scrape the >>>>>> issues resolved in a given release and add a comment to them noting that >>>>>> the change is in release N and encouraging (with clear instructions) how >>>>>> this can be validated. Creating a "validate this release" issue with all >>>>>> "contributing" participants could be an interesting way to do this as >>>>>> well. >>>>>> (I think it'd be valuable to get those who filed the issue, not just >>>>>> those >>>>>> who fixed it, to validate.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> As our next release manager, I'm happy to review PRs for either of >>>>>>> these if anyone wants to volunteer to help out. If not, I'm happy to >>>>>>> update >>>>>>> the guidelines, but I probably won't have time to add the commit >>>>>>> inspection >>>>>>> tooling (I'm planning on throwing any extra time towards continuing to >>>>>>> automate release candidate creation which is currently a more impactful >>>>>>> problem IMO). I would very much like it if both of these things happened >>>>>>> though :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Danny >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:05 AM XQ Hu <x...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1. This is a great idea to try. @Danny McCormick >>>>>>>> <dannymccorm...@google.com> FYI as our next release manager. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:30 PM Johanna Öjeling via dev < >>>>>>>> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When I have contributed to Apache Airflow, they have tagged all >>>>>>>>> contributors concerned in a GitHub issue when the RC is available and >>>>>>>>> asked >>>>>>>>> us to validate it. Example: #29424 >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/29424>. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I found that to be an effective way to notify contributors of the >>>>>>>>> RC and nudge them to help out. In the issue description there is a >>>>>>>>> reference to the guidelines on how to test the RC and a note that >>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>> are encouraged to vote on the mailing list (which could admittedly be >>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>> highlighted because I did not pay attention to it until now and was >>>>>>>>> unaware >>>>>>>>> that contributors had a vote). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It might be an idea to consider something similar here to increase >>>>>>>>> the participation? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 7:01 PM Jack McCluskey via dev < >>>>>>>>> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on helping explain what we mean by "validate the RC" since >>>>>>>>>> we're really just asking users to see if their existing use cases >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>> along with our typical slate of tests. I don't know if offloading >>>>>>>>>> that work >>>>>>>>>> to our active validators is the right approach though, >>>>>>>>>> documentation/screen >>>>>>>>>> share of their specific workflow is definitely less useful than >>>>>>>>>> having a >>>>>>>>>> more general outline of how to install the RC and things to look out >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> when testing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 12:55 PM Austin Bennett < >>>>>>>>>> aus...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Great effort. I'm also interested in streamlining releases -- >>>>>>>>>>> so if there are alot of manual tests that could be automated, would >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> great to discover and then look to address. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 8:47 AM Robert Bradshaw via dev < >>>>>>>>>>> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would also strongly suggest that people try out the release >>>>>>>>>>>> against their own codebases. This has the benefit of ensuring the >>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>> won't break your own code when they go out, and stress-tests the >>>>>>>>>>>> new code >>>>>>>>>>>> against real-world pipelines. (Ideally our own tests are all >>>>>>>>>>>> passing, and >>>>>>>>>>>> this validation is automated as much as possible (though ensuring >>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> matches our documentation and works in a clean environment still >>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>> value), but there's a lot of code and uses out there that we don't >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> access to during normal Beam development.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 8:21 AM Svetak Sundhar via dev < >>>>>>>>>>>> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve participated in RC testing for a few releases and have >>>>>>>>>>>>> observed a bit of a knowledge gap in how releases can be tested. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that >>>>>>>>>>>>> Beam encourages contributors to vote on RC’s regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>>> tenure, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>> voting on an RC is a relatively low-effort, high leverage way to >>>>>>>>>>>>> influence >>>>>>>>>>>>> the release of the library, I propose the following: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> During the vote for the next release, voters can document the >>>>>>>>>>>>> process they followed on a separate document, and add the link on >>>>>>>>>>>>> column G >>>>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=437054928>. >>>>>>>>>>>>> One step further, could be a screencast of running the test, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> attaching >>>>>>>>>>>>> a link of that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We can keep repeating this through releases until we have >>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation for many of the different tests. We can then add >>>>>>>>>>>>> these docs >>>>>>>>>>>>> into the repo. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m proposing this because I’ve gathered the following >>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback from colleagues that are tangentially involved with >>>>>>>>>>>>> Beam: They are >>>>>>>>>>>>> interested in participating in release validation, but don’t know >>>>>>>>>>>>> how to >>>>>>>>>>>>> get started. Happy to hear other suggestions too, if there are >>>>>>>>>>>>> any to >>>>>>>>>>>>> address the above. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Svetak Sundhar >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Data Engineer >>>>>>>>>>>>> s <nellywil...@google.com>vetaksund...@google.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
