flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
Date Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:52:36 GMT
+1 for option 1)

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhueske@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to option 1)
>
> 2017-04-03 16:57 GMT+02:00 Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>:
>
> > Looks like #1 is better - 1.2.1 would be at least as stable as 1.2.0
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljoscha@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Just so we’re all on the same page. ;-)
> > >
> > > There was https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5808 which was a
> > > bug that we initially discovered in Flink 1.2 which was/is about
> missing
> > > verification for the correctness of the combination of parallelism and
> > > max-parallelism. Due to lacking test coverage this introduced two more
> > bugs:
> > >   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
> > > setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
> > >   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
> > > StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
> > >
> > > IMHO, the options are:
> > >  1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch
> and
> > > live with the bug still being present
> > >  2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
> > problems
> > > that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
> > > streaming programs
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Aljoscha
> > >
> > > > On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger <rmetzger@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what is best to do, but I think releasing 1.2.1 with
> > > > potentially more bugs than 1.2.0 is not a good option.
> > > > I suspect a good workaround for FLINK-6188
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188> is setting the
> > > > parallelism manually for operators that can't cope with the default
> -1
> > > > parallelism.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> aljoscha@apache.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> You mean reverting the changes around FLINK-5808 [1]? This is what
> > > >> introduced the follow-up FLINK-6188 [2].
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5808
> > > >> [2]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, at 19:10, Robert Metzger wrote:
> > > >>> I think reverting FLINK-6188 for the 1.2 branch might be a good
> idea.
> > > >>> FLINK-6188 introduced two new bugs, so undoing the FLINK-6188
fix
> > will
> > > >>> lead
> > > >>> only to one known bug in 1.2.1, instead of an uncertain number
of
> > > issues.
> > > >>> So 1.2.1 is not going to be worse than 1.2.0
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The fix will hopefully make it into 1.2.2 then.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Any other thoughts on this?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhueske@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> I merged the fix for FLINK-6044 to the release-1.2 and release-1.1
> > > >> branch.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 2017-03-31 15:02 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <fhueske@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> We should also backport the fix for FLINK-6044 to Flink
1.2.1.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I'll take care of that.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> 2017-03-30 18:50 GMT+02:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljoscha@apache.org
> >:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 turns
out to
> be
> > a
> > > >> bit
> > > >>>>>> more involved, see my comments on the PR:
> > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> As I said there, maybe we should revert the commits
regarding
> > > >>>>>> parallelism/max-parallelism changes and release and
then fix it
> > > >> later.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> I commented on FLINK-6214: I think it's working
as intended,
> > > >> although
> > > >>>> we
> > > >>>>>>> could fix the javadoc/doc.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, at 17:35, Timo Walther wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> A user reported that all tumbling and slinding
window
> assigners
> > > >>>>>> contain
> > > >>>>>>>> a pretty obvious bug about offsets.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6214
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I think we should also fix this for 1.2.1.
What do you think?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>> Timo
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Am 29/03/17 um 11:30 schrieb Robert Metzger:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Haohui,
> > > >>>>>>>>> I agree that we should fix the parallelism
issue. Otherwise,
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>> 1.2.1
> > > >>>>>>>>> release would introduce a new bug.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Haohui
Mai <
> > > >> ricetons@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -1 (non-binding)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> We recently found out that all jobs
submitted via UI will
> > > >> have a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> parallelism of 1, potentially due
to FLINK-5808.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Filed FLINK-6209 to track it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ~Haohui
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM Chesnay
Schepler <
> > > >>>>>> chesnay@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> If possible I would like to include
FLINK-6183 & FLINK-6184
> > > >> as
> > > >>>>>> well.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> They fix 2 metric-related issues
that could arise when a
> > > >> Task is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> cancelled very early. (like, right
away)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak
where the TaskMetricGroup
> was
> > > >>>>>> never closed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions
in the buffer
> > > >> metrics
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha
Krettek wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I opened a PR for FLINK-6188:
https://github.com/apache/
> > > >>>>>>>>>> flink/pull/3616
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This improves the previously
very sparse test coverage for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> timestamp/watermark assigners
and fixes the bug.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Mar 2017, at 10:22,
Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at
9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> aljoscha@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I filed this issue,
which was observed by a user:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that’s blocking
for 1.2.1.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Mar 2017,
at 18:57, Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RC1 doesn't contain
Stefan's backport for the
> > > >> Asynchronous
> > > >>>>>> snapshots
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for heap-based
keyed state that has been merged. Should
> > > >> we
> > > >>>>>> create
> > > >>>>>>>>>> RC2
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with that fix
since the voting period only starts on
> > > >> Monday?
> > > >>>>>> I think
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would only
mean rerunning the scripts on your side,
> > > >>>> right?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> – Ufuk
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24,
2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> rmetzger@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Flink
community,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please vote
on releasing the following candidate as
> > > >> Apache
> > > >>>>>> Flink
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> version 1.2
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .1.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit
to be voted on:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *732e55bd*
(*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/flink/commit/
> > > >> 732e55bd
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://git-wip-us.apache.org/
> > > >>>> repos/asf/flink/commit/732e55b
> > > >>>>>> d>*)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Branch:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release-1.2.1-rc1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release
artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
> >*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release
artifacts are signed with the key with
> > > >>>>>> fingerprint
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> D9839159:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The staging
repository for this release can be found
> > > >> at:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/
> > > >> content/repositories/orgapache
> > > >>>>>> flink-1116
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
> > > >>>> ------------------------------
> > > >>>>>> -
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote ends
on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release
this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do
not release this package, because ...
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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