Comments inline.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 6:19 AM Krisztián Szűcs
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 8:11 AM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not sure how much this change will improve our release
> > process but I'm OK with this try.
> >
> > Here are technical blockers for this try:
>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 8:11 AM Sutou Kouhei wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure how much this change will improve our release
> process but I'm OK with this try.
>
> Here are technical blockers for this try:
>
> * Java packaging: WIP: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/9155
> * It takes 10m+.
Hi,
I'm not sure how much this change will improve our release
process but I'm OK with this try.
Here are technical blockers for this try:
* Java packaging: WIP: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/9155
* It takes 10m+.
* It may be failed because a release manager needs to prepare
Agreed, there are multiple issues to resolve in order for our release
process to be manageable and scalable for the project. This procedural
change is not a silver bullet, and if we agree to it, it doesn't mean that
our releases are "fixed". But it's the only change where the solution is a
discussi
I'm OK with moving to source only releases, but we need to take a step
back and consider how our CI/CD is failing to notify us in a suitably
timely and automated way about the packages being broken. For example,
the fact that we had 2 failed RCs as the result of packaging issues
points to a broken
