Hi all, I hereby cancel this vote! If there is no new negative feedback, I will prepare a new RC and bring up a new VOTE thread soon.
Best, Jincheng jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月6日周四 下午6:25写道： > Hi Chesnay, > > Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts. > > >> this is not a source release by definition, since a source release must > not contain binaries. This is a convenience binary, or possibly even a > distributed-channel appropriate version of our existing convenience binary. > A user downloading this package should know what they are downloading. > > Yes, I agree it should be a binary release as we mentioned it in the > discussion thread [1]. > > >>We have never released a binary without a corresponding source release, > and don't really have established processes for this nor for distribution > channels other than maven. > > This binary release is built from the 1.9.2 source release and the python > binary release package will be moved into the release folder[2] of 1.9.2 at > the final stage of this Python release. > > >> Technically speaking we don't require a vote, but it is something that > the PMC has to decide. > > Personally I think this is an official release because we have already > integrated the release process of PyFlink into the release of Flink[3]. > Besides, Spark[4] and Beam[5] also considered the PyPI package as an > official release as they have also integrated it into the official release > process. As any official release requires PMC votes according to the > bylaws[6], I think releasing PyFlink 1.9.2 to PyPI requires PMC votes. > Furthermore, it provides an opportunity for the community to verify the > release package. > > >> the artifact name is not descriptive as it neither says that it is a > binary nor that it is a python/PyPi-specific release > > Regarding the artifact name, it should match the project name in the PyPI > and so I think it is OK. > > >> Development status classifier seems incorrect as it is set to "Planning" > > Regarding the development status classifier name, I think you’re right and > will change it to 'Development Status :: 5 - Production/Stable', and change > the [author='Flink Developers'] to [author='Apache Software Foundation'], > in the new RC. > > What’s your thought? > > Best, > Jincheng > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1dabcda27a584ecda59129db4188073fb8ff7100b884a7564c1c2f73%40%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/flink-1.9.2/ > [3] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Creating+a+Flink+Release#CreatingaFlinkRelease-DeployPythonartifactstoPyPI > [4] https://spark.apache.org/release-process.html > [5] https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/ > [6] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws > > > Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> 于2020年2月5日周三 下午10:18写道： > >> -1 >> >> - this is not a source release by definition, since a source release >> must not contain binaries. This is a convenience binary, or possibly >> even a distributed-channel appropriate version of our existing >> convenience binary. A user downloading this package should know what >> they are downloading. >> We have never released a binary without a corresponding source release, >> and don't really have established processes for this nor for >> distribution channels other than maven. Technically speaking we don't >> require a vote, but it is something that the PMC has to decide. >> >> - the artifact name is not descriptive as it neither says that it is a >> binary nor that it is a python/PyPi-specific release >> >> - Development status classifier seems incorrect as it is set to "Planning" >> >> >> On 05/02/2020 09:03, jincheng sun wrote: >> > Hi Wei, >> > >> > Thanks for your vote and I appreciate that you kindly help to take the >> > ticket. >> > >> > I've assigned the JIRAs to you! >> > >> > Best, >> > Jincheng >> > >> > >> > Wei Zhong <weizhong0...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月5日周三 下午3:55写道： >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Thanks for driving this, Jincheng. >> >> >> >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> >> >> - Verified signatures and checksums. >> >> - `pip install apache-flink-1.9.2.tar.gz` successfully. >> >> - Start local pyflink shell via `pyflink-shell.sh local` and try the >> >> examples in the help message, run well and no exception. >> >> - Try a word count example in IDE, run well and no exception. >> >> >> >> In addition I'm willing to take these JIRAs. Could you assign them to >> me? >> >> :) >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Wei >> >> >> >> >> >>> 在 2020年2月5日，14:49，jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com> 写道： >> >>> >> >>> Hi everyone, >> >>> >> >>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the PyFlink >> >> version >> >>> 1.9.2, as follows: >> >>> >> >>> [ ] +1, Approve the release >> >>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments) >> >>> >> >>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which >> includes: >> >>> * the official Apache source release and binary convenience releases >> to >> >> be >> >>> deployed to dist.apache.org [1], which are signed with the key with >> >>> fingerprint 8FEA1EE9D0048C0CCC70B7573211B0703B79EA0E [2], >> >>> * source code tag "release-1.9.2" [3], >> >>> * create JIRA. for add description of support 'pip install' to 1.9.x >> >>> documents[4] >> >>> * create JIRA. for add PyPI release process for subsequent version >> >> release >> >>> of 1.9.x . i.e. improve the script of `create-binary-release. sh`.[5] >> >>> >> >>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority >> >>> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Jincheng >> >>> >> >>> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.9.2-rc0/ >> >>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS >> >>> [3] https://github.com/apache/flink/tree/release-1.9.2 >> >>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15908 >> >>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15909 >> >> >> >>
