flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Schedule and Scope for Flink 1.2
Date Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:41:24 GMT
Thank you for the update. Do you think you get it done until Monday evening?

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljoscha@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
> we're still working on making the backwards compatibility from 1.1
> savepoints a reality. We have most of the code and some tests now but it
> still needs some work. This is the issue that tracks the progress on the
> operators that we would like to make backwards compatible:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5292
>
> Cheers,
> Aljoscha
>
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 at 11:22 Feng Wang <feng.wang@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > It will be pretty good if 1.2 branch could be forked off within this
> week,
> > and our guys working on FLIP-6  hope FLIP-6 branch could be merged into
> > master as soon as possible.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Feng Wang
> >
> > Alibaba
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 4:58 AM
> > To: dev@flink.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Schedule and Scope for Flink 1.2
> >
> > Thank you all for figuring out a solution for the security pull request.
> >
> >
> > Lets try to get 1.2 feature freezed as fast as possible so that we can
> > "unblock" waiting features like FLIP-6 and the remaining security
> changes.
> >
> > *What do you think about Friday evening (6pm Berlin, 9am US west coast)
> for
> > feature freezing Flink 1.2?* (only bugfixes are allowed in afterwards)
> > I'll then fork-off a "release-1.2" branch and update the version in
> > "master" to 1.3-SNAPSHOT.
> > Please object if you have a bigger change or any other reservations
> > regarding the feature freeze date!
> >
> > This is my current view of things on the release:
> >
> > - RESOLVED dynamic Scaling / Key Groups (FLINK-3755)
> > - RESOLVED Add Rescalable Non-Partitioned State (FLINK-4379)
> > - UNRESOLVED Add Flink 1.1 savepoint backwards compatability (FLINK-4797)
> > - RESOLVED [Split for 1.3] Integrate Flink with Apache Mesos (FLINK-1984)
> > - UNDER DISCUSSION Secure Data Access (FLINK-3930)
> > - RESOLVED Queryable State (FLINK-3779)
> > - RESOLVED Metrics in Webinterface (FLINK-4389)
> > - RESOLVED Kafka 0.10 support (FLINK-4035)
> > - RESOLVED Table API: Group Window Aggregates (FLINK-4691, FLIP-11)
> > - RESOLVED Table API: Scalar Functions (FLINK-3097)
> > Added by Stephan:
> > - NON-BLOCKING [Pending PR] Provide support for asynchronous operations
> > over streams (FLINK-4391)
> > - NON-BLOCKING [beginning of next week] Unify Savepoints and Checkpoints
> > (FLINK-4484)
> > Added by Fabian:
> > - ONGOING [Pending PR] Clean up the packages of the Table API
> (FLINK-4704)
> >  Move Row to flink-core (
> > Added by Max:
> > - ONGOING [Pending PR] Change Akka configuration to allow accessing
> actors
> > from different URLs (FLINK-2821)
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Vijay!
> > >
> > > The workaround you suggest may be doable, but I am wondering how much
> > that
> > > helps, because the authorization feature would be incomplete like that
> > and
> > > thus of limited use.
> > >
> > > I would also assume that merging it properly and in full use after the
> > 1.2
> > > release would be a bit better - in general, we have often avoided last
> > > minute additions of sensitive and complex features.
> > >
> > > Do you think it is more urgent to have this in Flink?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Stephan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Vijay <vijikarthi@yahoo.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Max and Ufuk, I respect your concerns and fully understand the
> > importance
> > > > of the network layer stack in Flink code base. Will you be
> comfortable
> > to
> > > > merge the code if I remove the Netty layer changes and leave the rest
> > of
> > > > the code. We can address the Netty code changes post 1.2 release?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Vijay
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:38 AM, Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12 December 2016 at 12:30:31, Maximilian Michels (
> mxm@apache.org)
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>> It seems like we lack the resources for now to properly to
take
> > > > >> care
> > > > >> of your pull request before the release. Unless someone from
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> community is really eager to help out here, I would be in favor
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> merging the pull request to the master after the release branch
> > > > >> has
> > > > >> been forked off. We should make sure it gets the attention it
> > deserves
> > > > >> then.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Max! I fully agree with your reasoning. +1 to not include
> this
> > > in
> > > > 1.2 now, but look at it afterwards. I hope that OK with you Vijay.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Ufuk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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