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 Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:24:12 GMT
Quick update here: I talked to Aljoscha offline, and the backwards
compatibility is still being tested (there were some bugs identified while
writing the tests).

Also, Stephan made some fixes to the build infrastructure (
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3029) that would be good to be
included into the release branch.
To finally get the FLIP-6 branch merged to master, I'm considering
branching off the 1.2 release later today. It will be a little bit more
overhead for Stephan and Aljoscha, but it will unblock all features waiting
for a Flink 1.3 master.




On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org> wrote:

> Thank you Aljoscha and Fabian for the updates.
> I propose *Monday evening (6pm Berlin, 9am US west coast) for feature
> freezing Flink 1.2 *then. This means that I'll create a release-1.2 fork
> and create a 1.2 RC0 (non-voting) release candidate for testing.
>
> I don't think that I'll create the first (voting) RC until January because
> of christmas and new years activities. Most of the committers I know are
> out of office during these 1,5 weeks.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhueske@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I merged the Table API refactoring changes:
>>
>> - RESOLVED Clean up the packages of the Table API (FLINK-4704)
>> - RESOLVED Move Row to flink-core (FLINK-5186)
>>
>> No blockers left from my side.
>>
>> Cheers, Fabian
>>
>> 2016-12-16 17:47 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljoscha@apache.org>:
>>
>> > Yes, I'm confident that we can finish the tests until then and merge the
>> > code.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 17:41 Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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