flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
Date Mon, 03 Apr 2017 16:32:29 GMT
+1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for 1.2.2


On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas <k.kloudas@data-artisans.com>
wrote:

> +1 for 1
>
> > On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +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