[VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
Locked
12
12
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
 
|
+1 for 1
> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote: > > +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 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
+1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for 1.2.2
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas <[hidden email]> wrote: > +1 for 1 > > > On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > +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 ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3664
> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for 1.2.2 > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> +1 for 1 >> >>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> +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 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
Thank you for opening a PR for this.
Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / backports? Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to go? On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> wrote: > I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3664 > > > On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for 1.2.2 > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < > [hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > >> +1 for 1 > >> > >>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> +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 ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > > |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
We can merge the metric changes; I'll rebase the branch and merge them
within the next hours. On 04.04.2017 11:57, Robert Metzger wrote: > Thank you for opening a PR for this. > > Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / backports? > > Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to go? > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3664 >> >>> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for 1.2.2 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < >> [hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for 1 >>>> >>>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>>>> +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 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >> |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
Would it be possible to merge also the PR to fix FLINK-6103 (
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3598)....? On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote: > We can merge the metric changes; I'll rebase the branch and merge them > within the next hours. > > On 04.04.2017 11:57, Robert Metzger wrote: > >> Thank you for opening a PR for this. >> >> Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / backports? >> >> Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to go? >> >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3664 >>> >>> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for >>>> 1.2.2 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < >>>> >>> [hidden email]> >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 for 1 >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>> +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/r >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epos/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 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> > -- Flavio Pompermaier Development Department OKKAM S.r.l. Tel. +(39) 0461 1823908 |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Metzger
I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2 that fixes a significant performance problem with append operations. I think this should definitely be part of the 1.2.1 release because this is already blocking some users. What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing run, e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state.
> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>: > > Thank you for opening a PR for this. > > Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / backports? > > Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to go? > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3664 >> >>> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for 1.2.2 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < >> [hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for 1 >>>> >>>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +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 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
The commits around FLINK-5808 have been reverted on release-1.2.
> On 4. Apr 2017, at 12:16, Stefan Richter <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2 that fixes a significant performance problem with append operations. I think this should definitely be part of the 1.2.1 release because this is already blocking some users. What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing run, e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state. > > >> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>: >> >> Thank you for opening a PR for this. >> >> Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / backports? >> >> Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to go? >> >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3664 >>> >>>> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for 1.2.2 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < >>> [hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 for 1 >>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +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 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > |
|
|
Should the commits be reverted from master branch as well ?
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> wrote: > The commits around FLINK-5808 have been reverted on release-1.2. > > > On 4. Apr 2017, at 12:16, Stefan Richter <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2 that fixes a significant > performance problem with append operations. I think this should definitely > be part of the 1.2.1 release because this is already blocking some users. > What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing run, > e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state. > > > > > >> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>: > >> > >> Thank you for opening a PR for this. > >> > >> Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / backports? > >> > >> Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to go? > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/ > flink/pull/3664 > >>> > >>>> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for > 1.2.2 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < > >>> [hidden email]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> +1 for 1 > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +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 ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
Yes, aljoscha already opened one against master:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3670 On 04.04.2017 17:57, Ted Yu wrote: > Should the commits be reverted from master branch as well ? > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> The commits around FLINK-5808 have been reverted on release-1.2. >> >>> On 4. Apr 2017, at 12:16, Stefan Richter <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>> I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2 that fixes a significant >> performance problem with append operations. I think this should definitely >> be part of the 1.2.1 release because this is already blocking some users. >> What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing run, >> e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state. >>> >>>> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>: >>>> >>>> Thank you for opening a PR for this. >>>> >>>> Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / backports? >>>> >>>> Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to go? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/ >> flink/pull/3664 >>>>>> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for >> 1.2.2 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < >>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> +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 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
@Stefan: What's the state with the RocksDB fixes? I would be +1 to do this.
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> wrote: > Yes, aljoscha already opened one against master: > https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3670 > > On 04.04.2017 17:57, Ted Yu wrote: >> >> Should the commits be reverted from master branch as well ? >> >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> The commits around FLINK-5808 have been reverted on release-1.2. >>> >>>> On 4. Apr 2017, at 12:16, Stefan Richter <[hidden email]> >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2 that fixes a significant >>> >>> performance problem with append operations. I think this should >>> definitely >>> be part of the 1.2.1 release because this is already blocking some users. >>> What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing run, >>> e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for opening a PR for this. >>>>> >>>>> Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / backports? >>>>> >>>>> Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to go? >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/ >>> >>> flink/pull/3664 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for >>> >>> 1.2.2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < >>>>>> >>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 for 1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +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/ |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
Hi All,
Any updates on this? It would be nice to get this out soon, the Kafka bug is hurting our prod jobs big time. Thanks, Gyula On Wed, Apr 5, 2017, 15:27 Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: > @Stefan: What's the state with the RocksDB fixes? I would be +1 to do this. > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > Yes, aljoscha already opened one against master: > > https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3670 > > > > On 04.04.2017 17:57, Ted Yu wrote: > >> > >> Should the commits be reverted from master branch as well ? > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> The commits around FLINK-5808 have been reverted on release-1.2. > >>> > >>>> On 4. Apr 2017, at 12:16, Stefan Richter <[hidden email] > > > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2 that fixes a > significant > >>> > >>> performance problem with append operations. I think this should > >>> definitely > >>> be part of the 1.2.1 release because this is already blocking some > users. > >>> What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing > run, > >>> e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>: > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you for opening a PR for this. > >>>>> > >>>>> Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / > backports? > >>>>> > >>>>> Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to go? > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek < > [hidden email]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/ > >>> > >>> flink/pull/3664 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for > >>> > >>> 1.2.2 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +1 for 1 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> +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/ > |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
Hi Gyula,
I'm trying to push Stefan R. to get the RocksDB fixes in asap. On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Gyula Fóra <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi All, > > Any updates on this? > > It would be nice to get this out soon, the Kafka bug is hurting our prod > jobs big time. > > Thanks, > Gyula > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017, 15:27 Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > @Stefan: What's the state with the RocksDB fixes? I would be +1 to do > this. > > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > Yes, aljoscha already opened one against master: > > > https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3670 > > > > > > On 04.04.2017 17:57, Ted Yu wrote: > > >> > > >> Should the commits be reverted from master branch as well ? > > >> > > >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email] > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> The commits around FLINK-5808 have been reverted on release-1.2. > > >>> > > >>>> On 4. Apr 2017, at 12:16, Stefan Richter < > [hidden email] > > > > > >>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2 that fixes a > > significant > > >>> > > >>> performance problem with append operations. I think this should > > >>> definitely > > >>> be part of the 1.2.1 release because this is already blocking some > > users. > > >>> What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing > > run, > > >>> e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger <[hidden email] > >: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thank you for opening a PR for this. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / > > backports? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to > go? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek < > > [hidden email]> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/ > > >>> > > >>> flink/pull/3664 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly > for > > >>> > > >>> 1.2.2 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> +1 for 1 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann < > [hidden email]> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> +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/ > > > |
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)
|
|
I've now started building the next release candidate.
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Gyula, > > I'm trying to push Stefan R. to get the RocksDB fixes in asap. > > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Gyula Fóra <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Any updates on this? >> >> It would be nice to get this out soon, the Kafka bug is hurting our prod >> jobs big time. >> >> Thanks, >> Gyula >> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017, 15:27 Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > @Stefan: What's the state with the RocksDB fixes? I would be +1 to do >> this. >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]> >> > wrote: >> > > Yes, aljoscha already opened one against master: >> > > https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3670 >> > > >> > > On 04.04.2017 17:57, Ted Yu wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Should the commits be reverted from master branch as well ? >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < >> [hidden email]> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> The commits around FLINK-5808 have been reverted on release-1.2. >> > >>> >> > >>>> On 4. Apr 2017, at 12:16, Stefan Richter < >> [hidden email] >> > > >> > >>> >> > >>> wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2 that fixes a >> > significant >> > >>> >> > >>> performance problem with append operations. I think this should >> > >>> definitely >> > >>> be part of the 1.2.1 release because this is already blocking some >> > users. >> > >>> What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing >> > run, >> > >>> e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger < >> [hidden email]>: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Thank you for opening a PR for this. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / >> > backports? >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to >> go? >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek < >> > [hidden email]> >> > >>>>> wrote: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>>> I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/ >> > >>> >> > >>> flink/pull/3664 >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly >> for >> > >>> >> > >>> 1.2.2 >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas < >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> [hidden email]> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> +1 for 1 >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann < >> [hidden email]> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> wrote: >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> +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/flin >> k/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/ >> > >> > > |
«
Return to (DEPRECATED) Apache Flink Mailing List archive.
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |