To report a release-blocking bug, please file a bug using the Release blocker
label, and cc me.
Task list:
Scheduling note: if possible, I'd love to get https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/pull/10622 into this release -- it's been delayed a fairly long time on design reviews, and our internal builds are suffering for it.
@meteorcloudy Can we make Bazel 2.2 our first release built on Kokoro? :)
Yes!
It turned out there are more work to be done for migrating to Kokoro. So I think let's not hurry for 2.2.
@jmillikin-stripe I'm sorry, the PR you wanted to have in Bazel 2.2 still hasn't been merged yet, but I'm already super late with cutting the baseline for Bazel 2.2. The next Bazel release will already be cut on March 1st.
I pinged Jakob, but he said he can't get it done right now, so I have to go ahead and prepare Bazel 2.2 now.
I'm preparing Bazel 2.2.0 now:
RELEASE_NUMBER=2.2.0
BASELINE_COMMIT=78055efad0917b848078bf8d97b3adfddf91128d
git clone https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel.git ~/bazel-release-$RELEASE_NUMBER
cd ~/bazel-release-$RELEASE_NUMBER
scripts/release/release.sh create $RELEASE_NUMBER $BASELINE_COMMIT
It's here I guess? :arrow_right: https://releases.bazel.build/2.2.0/rc1/index.html
:rocket:
@gertvdijk Correct. :) I'll send the announcement to bazel-discuss@ now.
@philwo little bit of a threadjack but I noticed in the rc1 release notes the cuda/opencl file extension support I've been using for ~2 years now and that recently got accepted was reverted
See
https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/commit/250647bc89d5bb42fa2456b2b497fb254c775861
https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/6578
Is this going to be cut from 2.2 / can you maybe make sure to chase down why it's important to revert those changes and the right thing to do over all?
FWIW, 2.2.0rc1 works like a charm here as drop-in replacement for 2.1.0 (tested @ linux x86_64 via Bazelisk on some internal repos).
@gertvdijk Let's push it then :D
I haven't heard about any release blockers.
Edit: I haven't finished the release notes yet, will do that tomorrow morning and then push the release. 2.2.0 will be identical to 2.2.0rc1 unless I hear anything by then.
Release 2.2.0 has been pushed, release notes on our blog to follow.
fedora/centos/RHEL builds are kicked off: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/1282540
also note, this package is "bazel2"
โโโโโโโ Original Message โโโโโโโ
On Tuesday, March 3, 2020 4:53 AM, Dmitry Lomov notifications@github.com wrote:
Status of Bazel 2.2.0
- Target baseline: 78055ef
- Expected release date: 2020-02-20
- List of release blockers
To report a release-blocking bug, please file a bug using the Release blocker label, and cc me.
Task list:
- Update GitHub issues for incompatible changes
- Pick release baseline: 78055ef
Create release candidate: https://releases.bazel.build/2.2.0/rc1/index.html
Check downstream projects: https://buildkite.com/bazel/bazel-at-head-plus-downstream/builds/1389
Send for review the release announcement PR:
Push the release, notify package maintainers: @vbatts @petemounce @excitoon
Update the documentation
- Push the blog post
- Update the release page
โ
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
none of the aarch64 builds succeeded
Looks like this is the error on aarch64:
bazel-out/aarch64-opt/bin/external/bazel_tools/tools/jdk/include/jni.h:45:10: fatal error: jni_md.h: No such file or directory
45 | #include "jni_md.h"
If someone can repro and send a PR to fix it, I can look into doing a patch release. I won't have time to do it myself this week unfortunately.
We should also file this so I can track it for the next release.
@philwo Hi, were you able to do a patch?
I also get this exact error.
My Java details:
$ java -version ; javac -version
openjdk version "1.8.0_212"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_212-8u212-b01-1+rpi1-b01)
OpenJDK Client VM (build 25.212-b01, mixed mode)
javac 1.8.0_212
I have confirmed that jni_md.h
does not exist in the JDK include directory, and upon further investigation I saw:
this is done by intent. These compat symlinks were wrong in openjdk-7.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=760301
@vbatts I still cannot install 2.2.0 on Fedora 31:
$ sudo dnf install bazel
Copr repo for bazel owned by vbatts
=============================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
=============================================================
bazel x86_64 1.2.1-1.fc31 copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:vbatts:bazel
I am also still unable to build 2.2.0 on ARM.
I managed to build 2.1.1 last night on ARM.
@vbatts I still cannot install 2.2.0 on Fedora 31:
$ sudo dnf install bazel Copr repo for bazel owned by vbatts ============================================================= Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================= bazel x86_64 1.2.1-1.fc31 copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:vbatts:bazel
dnf install -y --allowerasing bazel2
dnf dnf install -y --allowerasing bazel2
Thanks! Should the documentation be updated: [1]?
dnf copr enable vbatts/bazel
dnf install bazel
[1] https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/install-redhat.html
@source-creator Unfortunately not yet. If anyone has a working patch that makes the build work on ARM, I'm happy to review it and get it in.
@philwo is there a reason why this issue is still opened or just forgotten?
@limdor Just forgotten to close it, sorry.
Most helpful comment
@gertvdijk Let's push it then :D
I haven't heard about any release blockers.
Edit: I haven't finished the release notes yet, will do that tomorrow morning and then push the release. 2.2.0 will be identical to 2.2.0rc1 unless I hear anything by then.