flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maximilian Michels <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Release current master as 0.9.1 (mod few changes)
Date Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:08:51 GMT
A bugfix release should not be forked from the current master. It is
very hard to asses whether we don't break the API because there are
many small fixes going in almost daily. However, I can see applying a
subset of carefully selected commits from the master branch as an
option. Only those commits should be cherry-picked which are required
to fix the streaming issues.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
> @Aljoscha: Correct me if I am wrong, but did the change actually break
> anything user facing?
>
> The source function and source context interface look still the same. The
> underlying changes to introduce watermarks should not be visible to any
> user anyways at this point (if we remove the additional source contexts)
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> The timestamp thing is one of the biggest questions.
>>
>> The fixes that came as part of that pull request are crucial and hard to
>> pull out of the change.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljoscha@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think we had to many API breaking changes. If everyone was
>>> careful,
>>> maybe these are even it:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/0.10+Release
>>>
>>> I added my breaking stuff there. And of course the whole Timestamp thing
>>> is
>>> a change, but it does not affect the normal source interface.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 at 10:24 Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > We can also try and "rebase" a fork of the maser to the "0.9" branch,
>>> where
>>> > we select something like 70%-80% of the commits (all fixes and reworks)
>>> and
>>> > drop the API beaking ones.
>>> >
>>> > Let me try this and see how feasible it is...
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I think you are the best one to assess this at the moment since you
>>> are
>>> > > doing the hard work of back porting the changes.
>>> > >
>>> > > Are you suggesting this, because it is a) less error-prone/easier or
>>> b)
>>> > > faster to do?
>>> > >
>>> > > For those that haven't followed the discussion: Stephan is back
>>> porting
>>> > > fixes for the streaming fault tolerance. There is consensus that the
>>> > > changes need to be in the bug fix release. So it's definitely not an
>>> > option
>>> > > to skip it.
>>> > >
>>> > > In general I would like to keep our established process of back
>>> porting
>>> > > fixes to the release-X branch. But given the importance of the to be
>>> back
>>> > > ported fixes and the difficulty of back porting it, I think your
>>> > suggestion
>>> > > is reasonable. We have to be very careful to not change behaviour
>>> between
>>> > > minor releases though.
>>> > >
>>> > > We also have to think about the following points if we fork off from
>>> > > master:
>>> > > - The startup script behaviour has changed
>>> > > - HA ZooKeeper setup needs to be removed
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message