[VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

[Robert Metzger]

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/732e55bd>*)

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/orgapacheflink-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 ...

[Ufuk Celebi-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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/732e55bd>*)
>
> 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/orgapacheflink-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 ...

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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/732e55bd>*)
>>
>> 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/orgapacheflink-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 ...

[Ufuk Celebi-2]

I agree with Aljoscha.

-1 because of FLINK-6188


On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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/732e55bd>*)
>>>
>>> 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/orgapacheflink-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 ...
>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I agree with Aljoscha.
>
> -1 because of FLINK-6188
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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/732e55bd>*)
>>>>
>>>> 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/orgapacheflink-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 ...
>>

[Chesnay Schepler-3]

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Aljoscha.
>>
>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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/732e55bd>*)
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/orgapacheflink-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 ...
>

[Haohui Mai]

-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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree with Aljoscha.
> >>
> >> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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/732e55bd>*)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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/orgapacheflink-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 ...
> >
>
>

[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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I agree with Aljoscha.
> > >>
> > >> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> [hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > 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/732e55bd>*)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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/orgapacheflink-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 ...
> > >
> >
> >
>

[Timo Walther-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
>>>>>
>>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>> [hidden email]>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>>> 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/732e55bd>*)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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/orgapacheflink-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 ...
>>>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>> 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/732e55bd>*)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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/orgapacheflink-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 ...
> >>>
>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >>> 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/732e55bd>*)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 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/orgapacheflink-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 ...
> > >>>
> >

[Fabian Hueske-2]

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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > >> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >>> 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/732e55bd
> >*)
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 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/
> orgapacheflink-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 ...
> > > >>>
> > >
>

[Fabian Hueske-2]

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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > >> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>> > > >> [hidden email]>
>> > > >>> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
>> > > >> [hidden email]>
>> > > >>> 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 ...
>> > > >>>
>> > >
>>
>
>

[Robert Metzger]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > >> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> >> > > >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > >>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> >> > > >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > >>> 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 ...
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > >> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >> 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 <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> > > >> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > >> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> > > >>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > >> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> > > >>> 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 ...
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >

[Robert Metzger]

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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > >> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > >> 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 <
> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > >> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > >> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > >>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > > >> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > >>> 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 ...
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>

[Ted Yu]

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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 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 <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>
>

[Fabian Hueske-2]

+1 to option 1)

2017-04-03 16:57 GMT+02:00 Ted Yu <[hidden email]>:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> 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 <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>> 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 <
> > >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > >>>> 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 <
> > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 ...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

[Till Rohrmann]

+1 for option 1)

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 to option 1)
>
> 2017-04-03 16:57 GMT+02:00 Ted Yu <[hidden email]>:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > >> 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 <[hidden email]>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> 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 <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 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 <
> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>> 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 <
> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Aljoscha.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > >>>> 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 <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 ...
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>