+1 for email automation! On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 8:22 AM Yuanjian Li <xyliyuanj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for option 1. > > Seems the only downside of option 1 is that some RC numbers may be > non-sequential. > > Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon.h...@gmail.com> 于2025年6月5日周四 07:57写道： > >> +1 for the proposal, Hyukjin. Thank you for the whole and seamless >> migration toward this direction. >> >> Please make it sure that we explicitly show the human release manager >> name and email address (instead of bot sender) in the generated email. >> That's the only concern I have. >> >> Thanks, >> Dongjoon. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 9:32 PM Mridul Muralidharan <mri...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> We can always invalidate the vote with -1 in case it is found to be >>> sent incorrectly ... As long as the automation does not end up generating a >>> tonne of mails, that is, it should be fairly manageable :) >>> I am in favor of automating it with option 1. >>> >>> Thanks for driving this Hyukjin ! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mridul >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 6:53 PM Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> As some of you may know, I’ve been working on automating the Spark >>>> release process (release.yml >>>> <https://github.com/apache/spark/actions/workflows/release.yml>). The >>>> basic steps are done, and I’m now looking into automating some of the >>>> remaining manual tasks. >>>> >>>> One such task is sending the email to start the vote for an RC. I’d >>>> like to automate this step as well. >>>> >>>> The potential downside is that, in corner cases, an incorrect RC might >>>> still trigger the vote email (even though failures should be caught >>>> earlier). To handle this, I propose we send the email automatically and >>>> rely on the community to help verify the RC. If something is wrong, we can >>>> simply cut a new RC - which is now much easier to do. >>>> >>>> Alternatively, a more conservative option is to generate a draft of the >>>> email in the build log and let the release manager copy and send it >>>> manually. >>>> >>>> I personally prefer the first approach, but I’d like to hear what >>>> others think. >>>> >>>>
