[DISCUSSION] Release current master as 0.9.1 (mod few changes)

[Till Rohrmann]

+1, good solution.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Márton Balassi <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > We will have a proper minor release and a preview of 0.10. After all,
> > a good compromise.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Chiwan Park <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > Robert's suggestion looks good. +1
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > >> On Aug 26, 2015, at 9:55 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1 seems to be a viable solution
> > >>
> > >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 at 14:51 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> That sounds like a very good compromise.
> > >>>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm +1 for Robert's proposal as well.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2015-08-26 14:46 GMT+02:00 Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I very much like Robert's suggestion. This way we can proceed with
> > the
> > >>>>> 0.9.1 release as planned for the remaining part and have
> > >>> 0.10-milestone1
> > >>>>> with the fix.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What about the others? Please give feedback early to allow me to
> > >>> proceed
> > >>>>> with the release.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
>

[Henry Saputra]

I am +1 for this idea.


- Henry

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm against using the current master for 0.9.1.
> It contains too many changes, posing the risk of changing APIs/semantics/...
> I agree with Max that there was no consensus or discussion regarding the
> scope of the 0.10 release.
>
> How about we release a 0.9.1 version containing all fixes we can easily
> apply to the release-0.9 branch and a 0.10-milestone1 off our current
> "master".
>
> Ideally we release 0.10-milestone1 before merging new major changes such as
> master high availablilty.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I might not have made my point clear but I wrote:
>>
>> >However, I can see applying a subset of carefully selected commits from
>> the
>> >master branch as an option.
>>
>> And you wrote:
>>
>> >We can also try and "rebase" a fork of the maser to the "0.9" branch,
>> where
>> >we select something like 70%-80% of the commits (all fixes and reworks)
>> and
>> >drop the API beaking ones.
>>
>> So we essentially agree on this issue. Or not?
>>
>> Forking the entire branch is not an option for me for the 0.9.1
>> release. I think we could do an 0.10 release since we never decided
>> 0.10 would freeze the streaming API. These are just statements by
>> individual committers and do not represent the community's opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > @mxm: I know the textbook theory ;-)
>> >
>> > The whole point here is that it is not possible to do that. Fixes and
>> major
>> > reworks changes go together so tightly that you can get none or both.
>> >
>> > Not having the fixes voids the purpose of the bugfix release. Having both
>> > means it is hard to guarantee all changes are non-breaking.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> A bugfix release should not be forked from the current master. It is
>> >> very hard to asses whether we don't break the API because there are
>> >> many small fixes going in almost daily. However, I can see applying a
>> >> subset of carefully selected commits from the master branch as an
>> >> option. Only those commits should be cherry-picked which are required
>> >> to fix the streaming issues.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> > @Aljoscha: Correct me if I am wrong, but did the change actually break
>> >> > anything user facing?
>> >> >
>> >> > The source function and source context interface look still the same.
>> The
>> >> > underlying changes to introduce watermarks should not be visible to
>> any
>> >> > user anyways at this point (if we remove the additional source
>> contexts)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> The timestamp thing is one of the biggest questions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The fixes that came as part of that pull request are crucial and
>> hard to
>> >> >> pull out of the change.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>> [hidden email]
>> >> >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I don't think we had to many API breaking changes. If everyone was
>> >> >>> careful,
>> >> >>> maybe these are even it:
>> >> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/0.10+Release
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I added my breaking stuff there. And of course the whole Timestamp
>> >> thing
>> >> >>> is
>> >> >>> a change, but it does not affect the normal source interface.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 at 10:24 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > We can also try and "rebase" a fork of the maser to the "0.9"
>> branch,
>> >> >>> where
>> >> >>> > we select something like 70%-80% of the commits (all fixes and
>> >> reworks)
>> >> >>> and
>> >> >>> > drop the API beaking ones.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Let me try this and see how feasible it is...
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > > I think you are the best one to assess this at the moment since
>> you
>> >> >>> are
>> >> >>> > > doing the hard work of back porting the changes.
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > Are you suggesting this, because it is a) less
>> error-prone/easier
>> >> or
>> >> >>> b)
>> >> >>> > > faster to do?
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > For those that haven't followed the discussion: Stephan is back
>> >> >>> porting
>> >> >>> > > fixes for the streaming fault tolerance. There is consensus that
>> >> the
>> >> >>> > > changes need to be in the bug fix release. So it's definitely
>> not
>> >> an
>> >> >>> > option
>> >> >>> > > to skip it.
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > In general I would like to keep our established process of back
>> >> >>> porting
>> >> >>> > > fixes to the release-X branch. But given the importance of the
>> to
>> >> be
>> >> >>> back
>> >> >>> > > ported fixes and the difficulty of back porting it, I think your
>> >> >>> > suggestion
>> >> >>> > > is reasonable. We have to be very careful to not change
>> behaviour
>> >> >>> between
>> >> >>> > > minor releases though.
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > We also have to think about the following points if we fork off
>> >> from
>> >> >>> > > master:
>> >> >>> > > - The startup script behaviour has changed
>> >> >>> > > - HA ZooKeeper setup needs to be removed
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>

[Stephan Ewen]

Quick update:

Ufuk and me worked on fixing the last issues for 0.9.1 today, bringing the
branch up to speed for the minor release.

Ufuk de facto stepped up as release manager and will create a release
candidate later today or early tomorrow. So we can get cracking with
testing the release candidate soon.

Concerning the 0.10-milestone release, we pushed also a set of critical
changes today. Some more are pending.

We'd like to branch off 0.10-milestone1 tomorrow if possible, so let's make
sure that all critical issues that should be fixed in the milestone release
get marked as such.

Greetings,
Stephan



On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Liang Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Agree.
> keep major version stability and compatibility, always being considered as
> first.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Release-current-master-as-0-9-1-mod-few-changes-tp7679p7680.html
> Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>