flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Schedule and Scope for Flink 1.2
Date Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:17:52 GMT
I just merged the most important backwards compatibility changes, with
tests.

I think this one is still a blocker:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5320 (WindowedStream.fold()
cannot be used). And this one is a potential blocker for some users:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5363.

IMHO, we can cut the branch today and I'll get them in on master and both
the 1.2 branch. What do you think?

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 at 15:24 Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org> wrote:

> 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