flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Planning the 0.9 Release
Date Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:40:05 GMT
Thanks Vasia!

We should clearly label Gelly as Work in Progress and at Beta status, then
it should be okay. This is very fair, it is the first version, people
understand that.

In that sense, let us not call Spargel deprecated in favor of Gelly yet,
but do that for the next release when Gelly is ready.

Stephan


On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri <vasilikikalavri@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> regarding the 2 gelly issues, I'm sorry but I haven't had time to work on
> these.
> And most certainly I won't be able to work on these today :S
>
> In any case, I wouldn't consider them blocker issues, so if you agree,
> please go ahead with the release candidate.
>
> -Vasia.
>
> On 5 June 2015 at 11:46, Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I'll address the remaining documentation issues today.
> >
> > What about
> >
> >    -
> >
> >    Sync Streaming Java/Scala API
> >    - Consolidate names across batch/streaming (discussion)
> >    - Merge static code analysis
> >
> > and the gelly TODOs
> >
> >    -
> >
> >    FLINK-1522 Add tests for the library methods and examples
> >    - FLINK-1943 Add Gelly-GSA compiler and translation tests
> >
> >
> > They seem both unresolved.
> >
> > Other than that it seems we are good to go.
> > Maybe we can manage to get the first release candidate out today?
> >
> > I'm uncertain whether we should fork off the "release-0.9" branch as part
> > of the RC creation or whether we should wait a bit with that.
> >
> > Forking it of would allow us to merge some of the pull requests (storm
> > compat), but we would need to apply many patches to two branches.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, Till, Max, Ufuk, and me have reached consensus that we will
> postpone
> > > the batch scheduling to 0.10. It is a crucial feature, but we would not
> > > like to have it in a highly pre-mature version in there.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What came up a lot is that there are a good set of additions that are
> > close
> > > to completion. We will probably bring up the suggestion of a 0.10
> release
> > > very soon after the 0.9 release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ping.
> > > >
> > > > On 04 Jun 2015, at 14:11, Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Critical issues:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Skipped buffer (
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/Buffer-re-ordering-problem-td6009.html
> > > )
> > > > (I'm on it)
> > > > > - Execution graph deadlock (FLINK-2133)
> > > >
> > > > I'm investigating the skipped buffer. I vote to not block the release
> > on
> > > > this though if I can't reproduce it in the next days.
> > > >
> > > > What about FLINK-2133?
> > > >
> > > > > Big open issue:
> > > > > - There has been consensus to merge the static code analysis PR for
> > > this
> > > > release, which needs some further testing (I'm on it)
> > > > > - Batch scheduling. I think Till and Stephan are working on this.
> Can
> > > > you guys give an estimate whether we will be able to have it in the
> > > release?
> > > >
> > > > @Till, Stephan: Will batch scheduling make it into the release? :)
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message