flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.3.0 (RC3)
Date Wed, 31 May 2017 14:52:01 GMT
What do you think about waiting with the release announcement for Flink 
1.3.1 until next week.

IMHO the documentation is not in a good shape for a release annoucement 
right now anyway.

Most of the new features of the Table API are not documented. Docs for 
other features are missing as well or exist in open PR [1].

Regards,
Timo

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6674


Am 31.05.17 um 15:03 schrieb Aljoscha Krettek:
> Yes, FLINK-6783 might even have been a release blocker…. It’s a new feature that
simply doesn’t work in most cases.
>
>> On 31. May 2017, at 14:51, Timo Walther <twalthr@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> We should also include FLINK-6783. It seems that WindowedStream::aggregate is broken
right now.
>>
>>
>> Am 31.05.17 um 14:31 schrieb Timo Walther:
>>> I merged all Table API related PRs.
>>>
>>> I'm also fine with a 1.3.1 release this or next week.
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 31.05.17 um 14:08 schrieb Till Rohrmann:
>>>> I would be ok to quickly release 1.3.1 once the the respective PRs have
>>>> been merged.
>>>>
>>>> Just for your information, I'm not yet through with the testing of the type
>>>> serializer upgrade feature, though.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Till
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Stefan Richter <
>>>> s.richter@data-artisans.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for releasing now and providing a 1.3.1 release soon.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 31.05.2017 um 11:02 schrieb Gyula Fóra <gyula.fora@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also lean towards getting the release out as soon as possible given
>>>>> that
>>>>>> it had been delayed quite a bit and there is no major issue without
a
>>>>>> straightforward workaround (agreeing with Nico and Kostas). I am
sure
>>>>> once
>>>>>> people will start using the new features we will see more issues
that
>>>>>> should be fixed asap in 1.3.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding the critical bug Till had found, we could add a line about
it
>>>>> to
>>>>>> the release notes so that people don't get blocked by it as there
is a
>>>>>> workaround possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kostas Kloudas <k.kloudas@data-artisans.com> ezt írta (időpont:
2017.
>>>>> máj.
>>>>>> 31., Sze, 10:53):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also tend to agree with the argument that says a release should
be out
>>>>>>> as soon as possible, given that 1) it improves usability/functionality
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> 2) at a minimum, it does not include new known bugs. The arguments
are
>>>>>>> more or less aligned with Nico’s response on the matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Focusing on the bug that spiked the current discussion, I agree
with
>>>>> Till
>>>>>>> that this is alarming, as it passed all previous testing efforts,
but I
>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>> add that if nobody so far encountered it, we could release 1.3
now and
>>>>> fix
>>>>>>> it in the upcoming 1.3.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kostas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 31, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Nico Kruber <nico@data-artisans.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> IMHO, any release that improves things and does not break
anything is
>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>> releasing and should not be blocked on bugs that it did not
cause.
>>>>>>>> There will always be a next (minor/major) release that may
fix this at
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>> time, given that the time between releases is not too high.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consider someone waiting for a bugfix/feature that made it
into 1.3.0
>>>>>>> who--if
>>>>>>>> delayed--would have to wait even longer for "his" bugfix/feature.
Any
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> bugfixes (and there will always be more) can wait a few more
days or
>>>>>>> even a few
>>>>>>>> weeks and may be fixed in 1.3.1 or so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nico
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 20:21:41 CEST Till Rohrmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> - Not sure whether it's a good argument to defer fixing
major bugs
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> they have not been introduced with 1.3.0. It's actually
alarming that
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>> things have not been found earlier given that we test
our releases
>>>>>>>>> thoroughly.



Mime
View raw message