Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-storm-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-storm-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EFF34180AE for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 21:05:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 85495 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2016 21:05:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-storm-user-archive@storm.apache.org Received: (qmail 85449 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2016 21:05:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@storm.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@storm.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@storm.apache.org Received: (qmail 85438 invoked by uid 99); 17 Feb 2016 21:05:30 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 21:05:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 3263DC0B76 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 21:05:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.198 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.198 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=salesforce.com Received: from mx2-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4zuyutGzOqpj for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 21:05:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com (mail-qg0-f50.google.com [209.85.192.50]) by mx2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id EEC135F1EB for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 21:05:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id y9so22420714qgd.3 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:05:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=salesforce.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=KlDspVntTBaeivo4QGo8hXsPl/eLm5t1eubfTwmcl2E=; b=VNUXrS2ue1DMePzWQNjwQdAVQIHmJdg80wVcYPbJMhtb9tqNHbUUxcJ+y7GK3RsMF9 enW9sqF2WNl31y0c0LKAjCUNkDuVbEziCByncHywtlkFu18qRrzYkeShPRBqrvU+JhnD R4UGtV6lwW8BnJfI0QJrzSd1fCGrZBSzYcmx8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=KlDspVntTBaeivo4QGo8hXsPl/eLm5t1eubfTwmcl2E=; b=VMI/0+DBH2leemnL8qFKuUbdlF+tLIBOaOfCHegOWpZt2dOuIzpTBfDJyshNGztcst 38JowCvKYiYzzv+MT9dxCNI1sSZ6CpW49kSypTqIplZECjsddhCYX8IQJX/pDni67DNI fbFFFYkhXY13e495MZCeNcvAaHSJHym4gXuMab/5FDBtFWY6haAoRQXGVWOAaqruktVa iJHyAg3+cylSlsXWXrpf27AOiEA0X84xwNAdKHONOsAXlnmn1yqxNqhlA7o3mJdCCiID H/yeY6qCul0C+mHycsarIvLzmb7+9dhTwhn1/Kw2/hZn2qiOMwu6jvFjV2JLldOzj4xz CJvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORshXQyjQtY/pnQern16xc/ktR7wcoGI5jLg8jNCSYAbYVyenBBjNLE5Eqkw2rEDwEsECVlOqaZ2zf8nHjH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.163.68 with SMTP id j65mr546618qhj.68.1455743128321; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:05:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.80.241 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:05:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56C4C8A9.9050208@touk.pl> References: <56C4C8A9.9050208@touk.pl> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:05:28 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: version 1.0? From: Stephen Powis To: user@storm.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11395ed80c7f60052bfd9c47 --001a11395ed80c7f60052bfd9c47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think typically in a production environment you would use the releases/versions released as being "stable" vs building from the latest code checked into source control. Storm 0.9.x for sure is used by tons of large enterprise companies -- 0.10.x doesn't seem like a huge departure from 0.9.x as far as writing topologies go (in testing our topologies didn't require changing any code going from 0.9.x to 0.10.x - we plan on upgrading in the next few weeks). Developers can chime in, but from my personal experience with Storm I wouldn't exactly focus on the "1.0" labeling so much as the software being consistent and stable from release to release. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Maciek Pr=C3=B3chniak wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any timeline for 1.0 release? > We're evaluating Storm (together with Flink) for our client and it'd be > great for us to have sliding window support. > Guess we could use version built from sources for some time - but we stil= l > need some estimates on 1.0 availability. > > thanks, > maciek > > --001a11395ed80c7f60052bfd9c47 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think typically in a production environment you wou= ld use the releases/versions released as being "stable" vs buildi= ng from the latest code checked into source control.=C2=A0 Storm 0.9.x for = sure is used by tons of large enterprise companies -- 0.10.x doesn't se= em like a huge departure from 0.9.x as far as writing topologies go (in tes= ting our topologies didn't require changing any code going from 0.9.x t= o 0.10.x - we plan on upgrading in the next few weeks).=C2=A0

Developers can chime in, but from my personal experience with Storm I woul= dn't exactly focus on the "1.0" labeling so much as the softw= are being consistent and stable from release to release.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:= 23 PM, Maciek Pr=C3=B3chniak <mpr@touk.pl> wrote:
Hi,

Is there any timeline for 1.0 release?
We're evaluating Storm (together with Flink) for our client and it'= d be great for us to have sliding window support.
Guess we could use version built from sources for some time - but we still = need some estimates on 1.0 availability.

thanks,
maciek


--001a11395ed80c7f60052bfd9c47--