You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@storm.apache.org by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> on 2017/08/25 07:26:36 UTC

[DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Hi devs,

We received a bug report (STORM-2682
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4 and
1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks like
pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?

Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any bug fix
issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic issues and
track them to make releases happening sooner.

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.

Yes. ;)

> On Jan 23, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Srikanth Viswanathan <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Taylor,
> 
> Do you mean 1.0.6 instead of 1.0.5? Thanks.
> 
> On Jan 23, 2018 10:59, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I just cut a release candidate for 1.2.0 and am working on RCs for 1.1.2
>> and 1.0.5.
>> 
>> I’m running into some build issues on 1.1.x  that are causing delays, but
>> wanted to let others know the releases are underway.
>> 
>> -Taylor
>> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I can also add that storm kafka client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT also works
>>> pretty well with Storm 1.1.0 : we patched in production our "logs
>>> centralization to HBase" topology to use the Spout from storm kafka
>>> client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and we have super-stable behavior with ~25000
>>> line of logs per second processed with relatively small setup (4
>>> spouts, and a 4-data nodes Hadoop cluster).
>>> 
>>> I must also confess that, so far, this setup is likely the one we're
>>> going to use for up *very soon" next production upgrade, because to
>>> our experience, we have very strange behavior of Nimbus UI showing
>>> wacky capacity statistics. For example, in our logs topology, our main
>>> bolt shows a capacity of 492.583 with a Storm cluster fully based on
>>> 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT, while the same topology fed by the same data on a
>>> Storm cluster 1.1.0 (but based on Storm kafka client 1.2.0 SNAPSHOT)
>>> gets a 0.142 capacity.
>>> 
>>> So far, we don't know if the capacity computed by Storm 1.1.0 is
>>> completely erroneous and underrated, or if there's a 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
>>> regression on capacity computation. I have been running out of time to
>>> build a sample, so I'm for the moment cowardly considering keeping our
>>> cluster at 1.1.0 version with storm kafka client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.
>>> 
>>> Disclaimer : I haven't rebuilt Storm 1.2.0 SNAPSHOT full distrib using
>>> maven for a long (1,5 month) while, so maybe this weird behavior of
>>> "capacity" was fixed in the meantime... hope I'll be able to find time
>>> to at least rebuild (upgrading our preproduction test is easy then) or
>>> maybe some RC binaries will be available soon?
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>>> 
>>> 2018-01-14 15:18 GMT+01:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
>>>> I think we're planning to release 1.2.0 once
>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2203 has been merged.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, storm-kafka-client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT will work with Storm 1.1.1.
>>>> 
>>>> 2018-01-14 15:08 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Stig,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I saw lots of changes in storm-kafka-client 1.x when compared to 1.1.1.
>>>>> Should I assume that storm-kafka-client from 1.x will work fine with
>> storm
>>>>> release 1.1.1?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Chandan
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:29 PM, chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Stig.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have considered that option but it is more easy to convince others
>> to
>>>>>> upgrade to a new release. I did read another mail thread discussing
>> 1.2.0
>>>>>> release but felt 1.1.2 is more close to release than the former.
>> Release
>>>>> of
>>>>>> 1.2.0 seemed pending in need of more consensus. Do we have an estimate
>>>>> when
>>>>>> is it coming out?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Chandan,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't believe STORM-2549 is fixed in 1.1.2. We're hoping to release
>>>>>>> 1.2.0
>>>>>>> soon, but if you need it now it's really easy to check out the Storm
>>>>> code
>>>>>>> and build storm-kafka-client yourself. Check out the 1.x-branch and
>> do
>>>>>>> "mvn
>>>>>>> clean install -DskipTests" from the project root. The
>> storm-kafka-client
>>>>>>> jar will be in external/storm-kafka-client/target.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2018-01-14 9:01 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1 Any idea when is 1.1.2v coming out. Under tremendous pressure to
>>>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client due to STORM-2549
>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549>. Is there any
>> help
>>>>>>>> needed towards that goal?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Satish Duggana <
>>>>>>> satish.duggana@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> +1 to start release process for 1.1.2v
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> +1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be
>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2
>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이
>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and
>>>>>>> now I
>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some time period to track again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have been delaying new release, since we have been
>>>>> focusing
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised
>>>>>>>>>> continuously.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> ready
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of
>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we have fixed another critical issues in core
>>>>>>>>> (STORM-2231[1],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in
>>>>>>>> 1.1.x
>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>> line yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not
>>>>> ported
>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like to remind this so that we could start the process at
>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> next year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> 님이
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
>>>>>>>>> renames
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead
>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> renames
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>>>>> arunm@apache.org
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The
>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>> jira/browse/STORM-2710
>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor
>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the
>>>>>>> middle of
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can
>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until
>>>>> some
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3
>>>>>>>> 911aa2226d>
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on
>>>>> Gitter, I
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch with the change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hugo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just
>>>>>>> asked a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will
>>>>> create
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> JIRA,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2607
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>>>>>>> arunm@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arunm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <
>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kabh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stig,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2.
>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> pull
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple
>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (sadly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable.
>>>>> That
>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this
>>>>>>> week.
>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get it too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0 at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postponing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<mailto:avermeerbergen@gmail.
>>>>> com
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with
>>>>>>> lots
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>> jira/browse/STORM-2648
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <
>>>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kabh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the
>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of
>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the
>>>>> progress
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one
>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>> left
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since
>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that module.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <
>>>>>>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ptgo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release
>>>>>>> candidate
>>>>>>>>>> (still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in
>>>>> 1.0.5
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>>>>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kabh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update.
>>>>>>> Personally
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
>>>>>>>>> quickly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can
>>>>> create
>>>>>>>> epic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Srikanth Viswanathan <sr...@gmail.com>.

Hi Taylor,

Do you mean 1.0.6 instead of 1.0.5? Thanks.

On Jan 23, 2018 10:59, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just cut a release candidate for 1.2.0 and am working on RCs for 1.1.2
> and 1.0.5.
>
> I’m running into some build issues on 1.1.x  that are causing delays, but
> wanted to let others know the releases are underway.
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Jan 14, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> avermeerbergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I can also add that storm kafka client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT also works
> > pretty well with Storm 1.1.0 : we patched in production our "logs
> > centralization to HBase" topology to use the Spout from storm kafka
> > client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and we have super-stable behavior with ~25000
> > line of logs per second processed with relatively small setup (4
> > spouts, and a 4-data nodes Hadoop cluster).
> >
> > I must also confess that, so far, this setup is likely the one we're
> > going to use for up *very soon" next production upgrade, because to
> > our experience, we have very strange behavior of Nimbus UI showing
> > wacky capacity statistics. For example, in our logs topology, our main
> > bolt shows a capacity of 492.583 with a Storm cluster fully based on
> > 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT, while the same topology fed by the same data on a
> > Storm cluster 1.1.0 (but based on Storm kafka client 1.2.0 SNAPSHOT)
> > gets a 0.142 capacity.
> >
> > So far, we don't know if the capacity computed by Storm 1.1.0 is
> > completely erroneous and underrated, or if there's a 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
> > regression on capacity computation. I have been running out of time to
> > build a sample, so I'm for the moment cowardly considering keeping our
> > cluster at 1.1.0 version with storm kafka client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.
> >
> > Disclaimer : I haven't rebuilt Storm 1.2.0 SNAPSHOT full distrib using
> > maven for a long (1,5 month) while, so maybe this weird behavior of
> > "capacity" was fixed in the meantime... hope I'll be able to find time
> > to at least rebuild (upgrading our preproduction test is easy then) or
> > maybe some RC binaries will be available soon?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >
> > 2018-01-14 15:18 GMT+01:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
> >> I think we're planning to release 1.2.0 once
> >> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2203 has been merged.
> >>
> >> Yes, storm-kafka-client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT will work with Storm 1.1.1.
> >>
> >> 2018-01-14 15:08 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Stig,
> >>>
> >>> I saw lots of changes in storm-kafka-client 1.x when compared to 1.1.1.
> >>> Should I assume that storm-kafka-client from 1.x will work fine with
> storm
> >>> release 1.1.1?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Chandan
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:29 PM, chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks Stig.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have considered that option but it is more easy to convince others
> to
> >>>> upgrade to a new release. I did read another mail thread discussing
> 1.2.0
> >>>> release but felt 1.1.2 is more close to release than the former.
> Release
> >>> of
> >>>> 1.2.0 seemed pending in need of more consensus. Do we have an estimate
> >>> when
> >>>> is it coming out?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Chandan,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't believe STORM-2549 is fixed in 1.1.2. We're hoping to release
> >>>>> 1.2.0
> >>>>> soon, but if you need it now it's really easy to check out the Storm
> >>> code
> >>>>> and build storm-kafka-client yourself. Check out the 1.x-branch and
> do
> >>>>> "mvn
> >>>>> clean install -DskipTests" from the project root. The
> storm-kafka-client
> >>>>> jar will be in external/storm-kafka-client/target.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2018-01-14 9:01 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 Any idea when is 1.1.2v coming out. Under tremendous pressure to
> >>>>> upgrade
> >>>>>> storm-kafka-client due to STORM-2549
> >>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549>. Is there any
> help
> >>>>>> needed towards that goal?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Satish Duggana <
> >>>>> satish.duggana@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1 to start release process for 1.1.2v
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>> process.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be
> >>>>> included
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> Storm
> >>>>>>>>>> 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2
> >>>>> soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이
> >>>>> 작성:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and
> >>>>> now I
> >>>>>>> got
> >>>>>>>>>>> some time period to track again.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We have been delaying new release, since we have been
> >>> focusing
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> 1.2.0
> >>>>>>>>>>> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised
> >>>>>>>> continuously.
> >>>>>>>>>>> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>> ready
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of
> >>>>> Storm
> >>>>>>>> 1.2.0
> >>>>>>>>>>> because we have fixed another critical issues in core
> >>>>>>> (STORM-2231[1],
> >>>>>>>>>>> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in
> >>>>>> 1.1.x
> >>>>>>>>> version
> >>>>>>>>>>> line yet.
> >>>>>>>>>>> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not
> >>> ported
> >>>>>> back
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now,
> >>>>> but
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>>> like to remind this so that we could start the process at
> >>> least
> >>>>>>>> earlier
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> next year.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>> 님이
> >>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
> >>>>> changes
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
> >>>>> methods
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
> >>>>>>> renames
> >>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead
> >>>>> making
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> change?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay
> >>>>> will
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> short.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
> >>>>> changes
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
> >>>>>> methods
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> renames
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
> >>> arunm@apache.org
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The
> >>>>>>> pending
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/
> >>> jira/browse/STORM-2710
> >>>>>>> seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor
> >>>>> release
> >>>>>>>> post
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arun
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the
> >>>>> middle of
> >>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can
> >>> get
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until
> >>> some
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3
> >>>>>> 911aa2226d>
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on
> >>> Gitter, I
> >>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> submit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch with the change.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hugo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just
> >>>>> asked a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> couple
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we
> >>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>> improve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will
> >>> create
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>> JIRA,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's
> >>> the
> >>>>>> new
> >>>>>>> PR
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2607
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
> >>>>> arunm@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arunm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0
> >>>>> out
> >>>>>>>> soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <
> >>> kabhwan@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> kabh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stig,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2.
> >>> For
> >>>>>>>> pending
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a
> >>> new
> >>>>>> pull
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> request?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple
> >>>>>> rebase
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (sadly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable.
> >>> That
> >>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this
> >>>>> week.
> >>>>>>>> I'll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> try
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get it too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0 at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> postponing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay
> >>> the
> >>>>> fix
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for
> >>>>> much
> >>>>>>>>>>>> longer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<mailto:avermeerbergen@gmail.
> >>> com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with
> >>>>> lots
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/
> >>>>>> jira/browse/STORM-2648
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <
> >>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kabh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the
> >>>>> thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of
> >>> them
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed
> >>> and
> >>>>>> will
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the
> >>> progress
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> Storm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one
> >>> issue
> >>>>>> left
> >>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or
> >>>>> more
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since
> >>> I'm
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that module.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <
> >>>>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ptgo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release
> >>>>> candidate
> >>>>>>>> (still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in
> >>> 1.0.5
> >>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
> >>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kabh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
> >>>>>> Storm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update.
> >>>>> Personally
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
> >>>>>>> quickly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
> >>>>>> include
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can
> >>> create
> >>>>>> epic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.

I just cut a release candidate for 1.2.0 and am working on RCs for 1.1.2 and 1.0.5.

I’m running into some build issues on 1.1.x  that are causing delays, but wanted to let others know the releases are underway.

-Taylor

> On Jan 14, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I can also add that storm kafka client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT also works
> pretty well with Storm 1.1.0 : we patched in production our "logs
> centralization to HBase" topology to use the Spout from storm kafka
> client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and we have super-stable behavior with ~25000
> line of logs per second processed with relatively small setup (4
> spouts, and a 4-data nodes Hadoop cluster).
> 
> I must also confess that, so far, this setup is likely the one we're
> going to use for up *very soon" next production upgrade, because to
> our experience, we have very strange behavior of Nimbus UI showing
> wacky capacity statistics. For example, in our logs topology, our main
> bolt shows a capacity of 492.583 with a Storm cluster fully based on
> 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT, while the same topology fed by the same data on a
> Storm cluster 1.1.0 (but based on Storm kafka client 1.2.0 SNAPSHOT)
> gets a 0.142 capacity.
> 
> So far, we don't know if the capacity computed by Storm 1.1.0 is
> completely erroneous and underrated, or if there's a 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
> regression on capacity computation. I have been running out of time to
> build a sample, so I'm for the moment cowardly considering keeping our
> cluster at 1.1.0 version with storm kafka client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.
> 
> Disclaimer : I haven't rebuilt Storm 1.2.0 SNAPSHOT full distrib using
> maven for a long (1,5 month) while, so maybe this weird behavior of
> "capacity" was fixed in the meantime... hope I'll be able to find time
> to at least rebuild (upgrading our preproduction test is easy then) or
> maybe some RC binaries will be available soon?
> 
> Best regards,
> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> 
> 2018-01-14 15:18 GMT+01:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
>> I think we're planning to release 1.2.0 once
>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2203 has been merged.
>> 
>> Yes, storm-kafka-client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT will work with Storm 1.1.1.
>> 
>> 2018-01-14 15:08 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> Stig,
>>> 
>>> I saw lots of changes in storm-kafka-client 1.x when compared to 1.1.1.
>>> Should I assume that storm-kafka-client from 1.x will work fine with storm
>>> release 1.1.1?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Chandan
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:29 PM, chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks Stig.
>>>> 
>>>> I have considered that option but it is more easy to convince others to
>>>> upgrade to a new release. I did read another mail thread discussing 1.2.0
>>>> release but felt 1.1.2 is more close to release than the former. Release
>>> of
>>>> 1.2.0 seemed pending in need of more consensus. Do we have an estimate
>>> when
>>>> is it coming out?
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Chandan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't believe STORM-2549 is fixed in 1.1.2. We're hoping to release
>>>>> 1.2.0
>>>>> soon, but if you need it now it's really easy to check out the Storm
>>> code
>>>>> and build storm-kafka-client yourself. Check out the 1.x-branch and do
>>>>> "mvn
>>>>> clean install -DskipTests" from the project root. The storm-kafka-client
>>>>> jar will be in external/storm-kafka-client/target.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2018-01-14 9:01 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 Any idea when is 1.1.2v coming out. Under tremendous pressure to
>>>>> upgrade
>>>>>> storm-kafka-client due to STORM-2549
>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549>. Is there any help
>>>>>> needed towards that goal?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Satish Duggana <
>>>>> satish.duggana@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1 to start release process for 1.1.2v
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start
>>> the
>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be
>>>>> included
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2
>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이
>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and
>>>>> now I
>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>> some time period to track again.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> We have been delaying new release, since we have been
>>> focusing
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> 1.2.0
>>>>>>>>>>> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised
>>>>>>>> continuously.
>>>>>>>>>>> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> ready
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of
>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>> 1.2.0
>>>>>>>>>>> because we have fixed another critical issues in core
>>>>>>> (STORM-2231[1],
>>>>>>>>>>> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in
>>>>>> 1.1.x
>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>> line yet.
>>>>>>>>>>> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not
>>> ported
>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> like to remind this so that we could start the process at
>>> least
>>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> next year.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> 님이
>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
>>>>> changes
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
>>>>> methods
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
>>>>>>> renames
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead
>>>>> making
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> change?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay
>>>>> will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> short.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
>>>>> changes
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because
>>> the
>>>>>>> renames
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>>> arunm@apache.org
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The
>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/
>>> jira/browse/STORM-2710
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor
>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
>>>>>>>>>>>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the
>>>>> middle of
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can
>>> get
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until
>>> some
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3
>>>>>> 911aa2226d>
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on
>>> Gitter, I
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> submit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch with the change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hugo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just
>>>>> asked a
>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we
>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will
>>> create
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> JIRA,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's
>>> the
>>>>>> new
>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2607
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>>>>> arunm@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arunm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0
>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <
>>> kabhwan@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>> kabh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stig,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2.
>>> For
>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a
>>> new
>>>>>> pull
>>>>>>>>>>>>> request?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple
>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>> (sadly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable.
>>> That
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this
>>>>> week.
>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get it too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0 at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> postponing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay
>>> the
>>>>> fix
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for
>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<mailto:avermeerbergen@gmail.
>>> com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with
>>>>> lots
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>> jira/browse/STORM-2648
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <
>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kabh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of
>>> them
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed
>>> and
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the
>>> progress
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one
>>> issue
>>>>>> left
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> epic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or
>>>>> more
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since
>>> I'm
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that module.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <
>>>>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ptgo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release
>>>>> candidate
>>>>>>>> (still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in
>>> 1.0.5
>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kabh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update.
>>>>> Personally
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
>>>>>>> quickly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can
>>> create
>>>>>> epic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>.

Hello,

I can also add that storm kafka client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT also works
pretty well with Storm 1.1.0 : we patched in production our "logs
centralization to HBase" topology to use the Spout from storm kafka
client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT and we have super-stable behavior with ~25000
line of logs per second processed with relatively small setup (4
spouts, and a 4-data nodes Hadoop cluster).

I must also confess that, so far, this setup is likely the one we're
going to use for up *very soon" next production upgrade, because to
our experience, we have very strange behavior of Nimbus UI showing
wacky capacity statistics. For example, in our logs topology, our main
bolt shows a capacity of 492.583 with a Storm cluster fully based on
1.2.0-SNAPSHOT, while the same topology fed by the same data on a
Storm cluster 1.1.0 (but based on Storm kafka client 1.2.0 SNAPSHOT)
gets a 0.142 capacity.

So far, we don't know if the capacity computed by Storm 1.1.0 is
completely erroneous and underrated, or if there's a 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
regression on capacity computation. I have been running out of time to
build a sample, so I'm for the moment cowardly considering keeping our
cluster at 1.1.0 version with storm kafka client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.

Disclaimer : I haven't rebuilt Storm 1.2.0 SNAPSHOT full distrib using
maven for a long (1,5 month) while, so maybe this weird behavior of
"capacity" was fixed in the meantime... hope I'll be able to find time
to at least rebuild (upgrading our preproduction test is easy then) or
maybe some RC binaries will be available soon?

Best regards,
Alexandre Vermeerbergen

2018-01-14 15:18 GMT+01:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
> I think we're planning to release 1.2.0 once
> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2203 has been merged.
>
> Yes, storm-kafka-client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT will work with Storm 1.1.1.
>
> 2018-01-14 15:08 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Stig,
>>
>> I saw lots of changes in storm-kafka-client 1.x when compared to 1.1.1.
>> Should I assume that storm-kafka-client from 1.x will work fine with storm
>> release 1.1.1?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Chandan
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:29 PM, chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks Stig.
>> >
>> > I have considered that option but it is more easy to convince others to
>> > upgrade to a new release. I did read another mail thread discussing 1.2.0
>> > release but felt 1.1.2 is more close to release than the former. Release
>> of
>> > 1.2.0 seemed pending in need of more consensus. Do we have an estimate
>> when
>> > is it coming out?
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> > stigdoessing@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Chandan,
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe STORM-2549 is fixed in 1.1.2. We're hoping to release
>> >> 1.2.0
>> >> soon, but if you need it now it's really easy to check out the Storm
>> code
>> >> and build storm-kafka-client yourself. Check out the 1.x-branch and do
>> >> "mvn
>> >> clean install -DskipTests" from the project root. The storm-kafka-client
>> >> jar will be in external/storm-kafka-client/target.
>> >>
>> >> 2018-01-14 9:01 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> > +1 Any idea when is 1.1.2v coming out. Under tremendous pressure to
>> >> upgrade
>> >> > storm-kafka-client due to STORM-2549
>> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549>. Is there any help
>> >> > needed towards that goal?
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Satish Duggana <
>> >> satish.duggana@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > +1 to start release process for 1.1.2v
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> >> > stigdoessing@gmail.com
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > +1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > +1
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start
>> the
>> >> > > release
>> >> > > > > process.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > -Taylor
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be
>> >> included
>> >> > in
>> >> > > > > Storm
>> >> > > > > > 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2
>> >> soon.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이
>> >> 작성:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and
>> >> now I
>> >> > > got
>> >> > > > > >> some time period to track again.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> We have been delaying new release, since we have been
>> focusing
>> >> on
>> >> > > > 1.2.0
>> >> > > > > >> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised
>> >> > > > continuously.
>> >> > > > > >> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2
>> >> is
>> >> > > ready
>> >> > > > > to
>> >> > > > > >> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of
>> >> Storm
>> >> > > > 1.2.0
>> >> > > > > >> because we have fixed another critical issues in core
>> >> > > (STORM-2231[1],
>> >> > > > > >> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in
>> >> > 1.1.x
>> >> > > > > version
>> >> > > > > >> line yet.
>> >> > > > > >> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not
>> ported
>> >> > back
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > > >> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now,
>> >> but
>> >> > > would
>> >> > > > > >> like to remind this so that we could start the process at
>> least
>> >> > > > earlier
>> >> > > > > in
>> >> > > > > >> next year.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> Thanks,
>> >> > > > > >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
>> >> > > > > >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> >> > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >님이
>> >> > > > > >> 작성:
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
>> >> > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
>> >> > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > >>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
>> >> changes
>> >> > we
>> >> > > > > >>>> discussed
>> >> > > > > >>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
>> >> methods
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > > > >>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
>> >> > > renames
>> >> > > > > are
>> >> > > > > >>>>> breaking changes.
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead
>> >> making
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > >>> change?
>> >> > > > > >>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
>> >> > > > > >>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay
>> >> will
>> >> > > be
>> >> > > > > very
>> >> > > > > >>>> short.
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> >> > > > > >>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>> >> > > > > >>>> 작성:
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> >> > > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >>>> :
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
>> >> changes
>> >> > > we
>> >> > > > > >>>>> discussed
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
>> >> > methods
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because
>> the
>> >> > > renames
>> >> > > > > >>> are
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> breaking changes.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>> arunm@apache.org
>> >> >:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The
>> >> > > pending
>> >> > > > > >>>> issues
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> in
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/
>> jira/browse/STORM-2710
>> >> > > seems
>> >> > > > > >>> to
>> >> > > > > >>>>> have
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor
>> >> release
>> >> > > > post
>> >> > > > > >>>>> 1.2.0.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Arun
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
>> >> > > > > >>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the
>> >> middle of
>> >> > > one
>> >> > > > > >>>>> review
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can
>> get
>> >> > this
>> >> > > > > >>>> merged
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> soon.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until
>> some
>> >> of
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > >>>>> changes
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
>> >> > > > > >>> https://github.com/
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3
>> >> > 911aa2226d>
>> >> > > > are
>> >> > > > > >>>>> fixed.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on
>> Gitter, I
>> >> > will
>> >> > > > > >>>> submit
>> >> > > > > >>>>> a
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> patch with the change.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hugo
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just
>> >> asked a
>> >> > > > > >>> couple
>> >> > > > > >>>> of
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we
>> >> should
>> >> > > > > >>> improve
>> >> > > > > >>>>> some
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
>> >> > > > > >>>> apache/storm/commit/
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will
>> create
>> >> a
>> >> > > JIRA,
>> >> > > > > >>> and
>> >> > > > > >>>>> all
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's
>> the
>> >> > new
>> >> > > PR
>> >> > > > > >>> for
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> 2607
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>> >> arunm@apache.org
>> >> > > > > >>> <mailto:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> arunm
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0
>> >> out
>> >> > > > soon.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <
>> kabhwan@gmail.com
>> >> > > <mailto:
>> >> > > > > >>> kabh
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Stig,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2.
>> For
>> >> > > > pending
>> >> > > > > >>>>> issues
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a
>> new
>> >> > pull
>> >> > > > > >>>> request?
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> We
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple
>> >> > rebase
>> >> > > > > >>> (sadly
>> >> > > > > >>>>> it
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> is
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable.
>> That
>> >> > issue
>> >> > > > > >>>>> relates a
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this
>> >> week.
>> >> > > > I'll
>> >> > > > > >>>> try
>> >> > > > > >>>>> to
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> get it too.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2
>> >> and
>> >> > > > > >>> 1.2.0 at
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> next
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> >> > > > > >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >>>>> <
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 작성:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
>> >> > > > > >>> postponing
>> >> > > > > >>>> the
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay
>> the
>> >> fix
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for
>> >> much
>> >> > > > > >>> longer.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<mailto:avermeerbergen@gmail.
>> com
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hello,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with
>> >> lots
>> >> > > of
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/
>> >> > jira/browse/STORM-2648
>> >> > > > > >>> with
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <
>> >> kabhwan@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >>> <mailto:
>> >> > > > > >>>>> kabh
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the
>> >> thread.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of
>> them
>> >> > are
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> regarding
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker
>> >> for
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Like
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed
>> and
>> >> > will
>> >> > > be
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> available
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the
>> progress
>> >> on
>> >> > > > Storm
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one
>> issue
>> >> > left
>> >> > > > on
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> epic.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or
>> >> more
>> >> > of
>> >> > > > > >>> them.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'll
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since
>> I'm
>> >> > not
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> familiar
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> with
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> that module.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <
>> >> > ptgoetz@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >>>> <mailto:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> ptgo
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release
>> >> candidate
>> >> > > > (still
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> some
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in
>> 1.0.5
>> >> or
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> should we
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> go
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> -Taylor
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>> >> > kabhwan@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >>>> <mailto:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> kabh
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
>> >> > Storm
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.0.4
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update.
>> >> Personally
>> >> > it
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> looks
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> like
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
>> >> > > quickly
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> for
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
>> >> > include
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> bug
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> fix
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can
>> create
>> >> > epic
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> issues
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

I think we're planning to release 1.2.0 once
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2203 has been merged.

Yes, storm-kafka-client 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT will work with Storm 1.1.1.

2018-01-14 15:08 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:

> Stig,
>
> I saw lots of changes in storm-kafka-client 1.x when compared to 1.1.1.
> Should I assume that storm-kafka-client from 1.x will work fine with storm
> release 1.1.1?
>
> Thanks
> Chandan
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:29 PM, chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Stig.
> >
> > I have considered that option but it is more easy to convince others to
> > upgrade to a new release. I did read another mail thread discussing 1.2.0
> > release but felt 1.1.2 is more close to release than the former. Release
> of
> > 1.2.0 seemed pending in need of more consensus. Do we have an estimate
> when
> > is it coming out?
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Chandan,
> >>
> >> I don't believe STORM-2549 is fixed in 1.1.2. We're hoping to release
> >> 1.2.0
> >> soon, but if you need it now it's really easy to check out the Storm
> code
> >> and build storm-kafka-client yourself. Check out the 1.x-branch and do
> >> "mvn
> >> clean install -DskipTests" from the project root. The storm-kafka-client
> >> jar will be in external/storm-kafka-client/target.
> >>
> >> 2018-01-14 9:01 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > +1 Any idea when is 1.1.2v coming out. Under tremendous pressure to
> >> upgrade
> >> > storm-kafka-client due to STORM-2549
> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549>. Is there any help
> >> > needed towards that goal?
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Satish Duggana <
> >> satish.duggana@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1 to start release process for 1.1.2v
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >> > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > +1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > +1
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start
> the
> >> > > release
> >> > > > > process.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -Taylor
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be
> >> included
> >> > in
> >> > > > > Storm
> >> > > > > > 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2
> >> soon.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이
> >> 작성:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and
> >> now I
> >> > > got
> >> > > > > >> some time period to track again.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> We have been delaying new release, since we have been
> focusing
> >> on
> >> > > > 1.2.0
> >> > > > > >> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised
> >> > > > continuously.
> >> > > > > >> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2
> >> is
> >> > > ready
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > >> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of
> >> Storm
> >> > > > 1.2.0
> >> > > > > >> because we have fixed another critical issues in core
> >> > > (STORM-2231[1],
> >> > > > > >> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in
> >> > 1.1.x
> >> > > > > version
> >> > > > > >> line yet.
> >> > > > > >> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not
> ported
> >> > back
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > >> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now,
> >> but
> >> > > would
> >> > > > > >> like to remind this so that we could start the process at
> least
> >> > > > earlier
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > >> next year.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
> >> > > > > >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >> > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >님이
> >> > > > > >> 작성:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
> >> > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
> >> changes
> >> > we
> >> > > > > >>>> discussed
> >> > > > > >>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
> >> methods
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > >>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
> >> > > renames
> >> > > > > are
> >> > > > > >>>>> breaking changes.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead
> >> making
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > >>> change?
> >> > > > > >>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
> >> > > > > >>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay
> >> will
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > very
> >> > > > > >>>> short.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >> > > > > >>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> >> > > > > >>>> 작성:
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >> > > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >>>> :
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
> >> changes
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > >>>>> discussed
> >> > > > > >>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
> >> > methods
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > >>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because
> the
> >> > > renames
> >> > > > > >>> are
> >> > > > > >>>>>> breaking changes.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
> arunm@apache.org
> >> >:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The
> >> > > pending
> >> > > > > >>>> issues
> >> > > > > >>>>>> in
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/STORM-2710
> >> > > seems
> >> > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>> have
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor
> >> release
> >> > > > post
> >> > > > > >>>>> 1.2.0.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Arun
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
> >> > > > > >>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the
> >> middle of
> >> > > one
> >> > > > > >>>>> review
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can
> get
> >> > this
> >> > > > > >>>> merged
> >> > > > > >>>>>> soon.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until
> some
> >> of
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > >>>>> changes
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
> >> > > > > >>> https://github.com/
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3
> >> > 911aa2226d>
> >> > > > are
> >> > > > > >>>>> fixed.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on
> Gitter, I
> >> > will
> >> > > > > >>>> submit
> >> > > > > >>>>> a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> patch with the change.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hugo
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just
> >> asked a
> >> > > > > >>> couple
> >> > > > > >>>> of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we
> >> should
> >> > > > > >>> improve
> >> > > > > >>>>> some
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
> >> > > > > >>>> apache/storm/commit/
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will
> create
> >> a
> >> > > JIRA,
> >> > > > > >>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>> all
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >> > > > > >>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's
> the
> >> > new
> >> > > PR
> >> > > > > >>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>> 2607
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
> >> arunm@apache.org
> >> > > > > >>> <mailto:
> >> > > > > >>>>>> arunm
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0
> >> out
> >> > > > soon.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <
> kabhwan@gmail.com
> >> > > <mailto:
> >> > > > > >>> kabh
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Stig,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2.
> For
> >> > > > pending
> >> > > > > >>>>> issues
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a
> new
> >> > pull
> >> > > > > >>>> request?
> >> > > > > >>>>>> We
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple
> >> > rebase
> >> > > > > >>> (sadly
> >> > > > > >>>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>> is
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable.
> That
> >> > issue
> >> > > > > >>>>> relates a
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this
> >> week.
> >> > > > I'll
> >> > > > > >>>> try
> >> > > > > >>>>> to
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> get it too.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2
> >> and
> >> > > > > >>> 1.2.0 at
> >> > > > > >>>>>> next
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >> > > > > >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >>>>> <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 작성:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
> >> > > > > >>> postponing
> >> > > > > >>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay
> the
> >> fix
> >> > > for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for
> >> much
> >> > > > > >>> longer.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<mailto:avermeerbergen@gmail.
> com
> >> >
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hello,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with
> >> lots
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/
> >> > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> >> > > > > >>> with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <
> >> kabhwan@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >>> <mailto:
> >> > > > > >>>>> kabh
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the
> >> thread.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of
> them
> >> > are
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> regarding
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker
> >> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Like
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed
> and
> >> > will
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> available
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the
> progress
> >> on
> >> > > > Storm
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one
> issue
> >> > left
> >> > > > on
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> epic.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or
> >> more
> >> > of
> >> > > > > >>> them.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'll
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since
> I'm
> >> > not
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> familiar
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> with
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> that module.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <
> >> > ptgoetz@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >>>> <mailto:
> >> > > > > >>>>>> ptgo
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release
> >> candidate
> >> > > > (still
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> some
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in
> 1.0.5
> >> or
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> should we
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> go
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> -Taylor
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
> >> > kabhwan@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >>>> <mailto:
> >> > > > > >>>>>> kabh
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi devs,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
> >> > Storm
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.0.4
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update.
> >> Personally
> >> > it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> looks
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> like
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
> >> > > quickly
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> for
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
> >> > include
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> any
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> bug
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> fix
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can
> create
> >> > epic
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> issues
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>.

Stig,

I saw lots of changes in storm-kafka-client 1.x when compared to 1.1.1.
Should I assume that storm-kafka-client from 1.x will work fine with storm
release 1.1.1?

Thanks
Chandan

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:29 PM, chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Stig.
>
> I have considered that option but it is more easy to convince others to
> upgrade to a new release. I did read another mail thread discussing 1.2.0
> release but felt 1.1.2 is more close to release than the former. Release of
> 1.2.0 seemed pending in need of more consensus. Do we have an estimate when
> is it coming out?
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> stigdoessing@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Chandan,
>>
>> I don't believe STORM-2549 is fixed in 1.1.2. We're hoping to release
>> 1.2.0
>> soon, but if you need it now it's really easy to check out the Storm code
>> and build storm-kafka-client yourself. Check out the 1.x-branch and do
>> "mvn
>> clean install -DskipTests" from the project root. The storm-kafka-client
>> jar will be in external/storm-kafka-client/target.
>>
>> 2018-01-14 9:01 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > +1 Any idea when is 1.1.2v coming out. Under tremendous pressure to
>> upgrade
>> > storm-kafka-client due to STORM-2549
>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549>. Is there any help
>> > needed towards that goal?
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Satish Duggana <
>> satish.duggana@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1 to start release process for 1.1.2v
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> > stigdoessing@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.
>> > > >
>> > > > 2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > > > +1
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start the
>> > > release
>> > > > > process.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Taylor
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be
>> included
>> > in
>> > > > > Storm
>> > > > > > 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2
>> soon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이
>> 작성:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and
>> now I
>> > > got
>> > > > > >> some time period to track again.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> We have been delaying new release, since we have been focusing
>> on
>> > > > 1.2.0
>> > > > > >> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised
>> > > > continuously.
>> > > > > >> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2
>> is
>> > > ready
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > >> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of
>> Storm
>> > > > 1.2.0
>> > > > > >> because we have fixed another critical issues in core
>> > > (STORM-2231[1],
>> > > > > >> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in
>> > 1.1.x
>> > > > > version
>> > > > > >> line yet.
>> > > > > >> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not ported
>> > back
>> > > > to
>> > > > > >> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now,
>> but
>> > > would
>> > > > > >> like to remind this so that we could start the process at least
>> > > > earlier
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > >> next year.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Thanks,
>> > > > > >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
>> > > > > >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
>> > > > > >님이
>> > > > > >> 작성:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
>> > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
>> changes
>> > we
>> > > > > >>>> discussed
>> > > > > >>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
>> methods
>> > > and
>> > > > > >>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
>> > > renames
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > >>>>> breaking changes.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead
>> making
>> > > the
>> > > > > >>> change?
>> > > > > >>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
>> > > > > >>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay
>> will
>> > > be
>> > > > > very
>> > > > > >>>> short.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > > > > >>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>> > > > > >>>> 작성:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> > > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
>> changes
>> > > we
>> > > > > >>>>> discussed
>> > > > > >>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
>> > methods
>> > > > and
>> > > > > >>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
>> > > renames
>> > > > > >>> are
>> > > > > >>>>>> breaking changes.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org
>> >:
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The
>> > > pending
>> > > > > >>>> issues
>> > > > > >>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710
>> > > seems
>> > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > >>>>> have
>> > > > > >>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor
>> release
>> > > > post
>> > > > > >>>>> 1.2.0.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>>> Arun
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
>> > > > > >>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the
>> middle of
>> > > one
>> > > > > >>>>> review
>> > > > > >>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get
>> > this
>> > > > > >>>> merged
>> > > > > >>>>>> soon.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > > > >>>>> changes
>> > > > > >>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
>> > > > > >>> https://github.com/
>> > > > > >>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3
>> > 911aa2226d>
>> > > > are
>> > > > > >>>>> fixed.
>> > > > > >>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I
>> > will
>> > > > > >>>> submit
>> > > > > >>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>> patch with the change.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hugo
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just
>> asked a
>> > > > > >>> couple
>> > > > > >>>> of
>> > > > > >>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we
>> should
>> > > > > >>> improve
>> > > > > >>>>> some
>> > > > > >>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
>> > > > > >>>> apache/storm/commit/
>> > > > > >>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create
>> a
>> > > JIRA,
>> > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > >>>>> all
>> > > > > >>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> > > > > >>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
>> > > > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the
>> > new
>> > > PR
>> > > > > >>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>> 2607
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>> arunm@apache.org
>> > > > > >>> <mailto:
>> > > > > >>>>>> arunm
>> > > > > >>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0
>> out
>> > > > soon.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com
>> > > <mailto:
>> > > > > >>> kabh
>> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Stig,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For
>> > > > pending
>> > > > > >>>>> issues
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new
>> > pull
>> > > > > >>>> request?
>> > > > > >>>>>> We
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple
>> > rebase
>> > > > > >>> (sadly
>> > > > > >>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That
>> > issue
>> > > > > >>>>> relates a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this
>> week.
>> > > > I'll
>> > > > > >>>> try
>> > > > > >>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> get it too.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2
>> and
>> > > > > >>> 1.2.0 at
>> > > > > >>>>>> next
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> > > > > >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>>>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 작성:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
>> > > > > >>> postponing
>> > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the
>> fix
>> > > for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for
>> much
>> > > > > >>> longer.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<mailto:avermeerbergen@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hello,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with
>> lots
>> > > of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/
>> > jira/browse/STORM-2648
>> > > > > >>> with
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <
>> kabhwan@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>> <mailto:
>> > > > > >>>>> kabh
>> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the
>> thread.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them
>> > are
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> regarding
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker
>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Like
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and
>> > will
>> > > be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> available
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress
>> on
>> > > > Storm
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue
>> > left
>> > > > on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> epic.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or
>> more
>> > of
>> > > > > >>> them.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'll
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm
>> > not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> familiar
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> with
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> that module.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <
>> > ptgoetz@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>>> <mailto:
>> > > > > >>>>>> ptgo
>> > > > > >>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release
>> candidate
>> > > > (still
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> some
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5
>> or
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> should we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> go
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> -Taylor
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>> > kabhwan@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>>> <mailto:
>> > > > > >>>>>> kabh
>> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
>> > Storm
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.0.4
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update.
>> Personally
>> > it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> looks
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> like
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
>> > > quickly
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> for
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
>> > include
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> any
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> bug
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> fix
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create
>> > epic
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> issues
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>.

Thanks Stig.

I have considered that option but it is more easy to convince others to
upgrade to a new release. I did read another mail thread discussing 1.2.0
release but felt 1.1.2 is more close to release than the former. Release of
1.2.0 seemed pending in need of more consensus. Do we have an estimate when
is it coming out?

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Chandan,
>
> I don't believe STORM-2549 is fixed in 1.1.2. We're hoping to release 1.2.0
> soon, but if you need it now it's really easy to check out the Storm code
> and build storm-kafka-client yourself. Check out the 1.x-branch and do "mvn
> clean install -DskipTests" from the project root. The storm-kafka-client
> jar will be in external/storm-kafka-client/target.
>
> 2018-01-14 9:01 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:
>
> > +1 Any idea when is 1.1.2v coming out. Under tremendous pressure to
> upgrade
> > storm-kafka-client due to STORM-2549
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549>. Is there any help
> > needed towards that goal?
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Satish Duggana <satish.duggana@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to start release process for 1.1.2v
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.
> > > >
> > > > 2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start the
> > > release
> > > > > process.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Taylor
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be included
> > in
> > > > > Storm
> > > > > > 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2
> soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이
> 작성:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and
> now I
> > > got
> > > > > >> some time period to track again.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> We have been delaying new release, since we have been focusing
> on
> > > > 1.2.0
> > > > > >> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised
> > > > continuously.
> > > > > >> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2 is
> > > ready
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of
> Storm
> > > > 1.2.0
> > > > > >> because we have fixed another critical issues in core
> > > (STORM-2231[1],
> > > > > >> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in
> > 1.1.x
> > > > > version
> > > > > >> line yet.
> > > > > >> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not ported
> > back
> > > > to
> > > > > >> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now, but
> > > would
> > > > > >> like to remind this so that we could start the process at least
> > > > earlier
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> next year.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
> > > > > >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > > >님이
> > > > > >> 작성:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
> > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
> changes
> > we
> > > > > >>>> discussed
> > > > > >>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
> methods
> > > and
> > > > > >>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
> > > renames
> > > > > are
> > > > > >>>>> breaking changes.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead
> making
> > > the
> > > > > >>> change?
> > > > > >>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
> > > > > >>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay
> will
> > > be
> > > > > very
> > > > > >>>> short.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > >>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > > > >>>> 작성:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The
> changes
> > > we
> > > > > >>>>> discussed
> > > > > >>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
> > methods
> > > > and
> > > > > >>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
> > > renames
> > > > > >>> are
> > > > > >>>>>> breaking changes.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The
> > > pending
> > > > > >>>> issues
> > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710
> > > seems
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>> have
> > > > > >>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor
> release
> > > > post
> > > > > >>>>> 1.2.0.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>> Arun
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
> > > > > >>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle
> of
> > > one
> > > > > >>>>> review
> > > > > >>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get
> > this
> > > > > >>>> merged
> > > > > >>>>>> soon.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some
> of
> > > the
> > > > > >>>>> changes
> > > > > >>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
> > > > > >>> https://github.com/
> > > > > >>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3
> > 911aa2226d>
> > > > are
> > > > > >>>>> fixed.
> > > > > >>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I
> > will
> > > > > >>>> submit
> > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>> patch with the change.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hugo
> > > > > >>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just
> asked a
> > > > > >>> couple
> > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we
> should
> > > > > >>> improve
> > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > >>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
> > > > > >>>> apache/storm/commit/
> > > > > >>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a
> > > JIRA,
> > > > > >>> and
> > > > > >>>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > > > >>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> > > > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the
> > new
> > > PR
> > > > > >>> for
> > > > > >>>>>> 2607
> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
> arunm@apache.org
> > > > > >>> <mailto:
> > > > > >>>>>> arunm
> > > > > >>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0
> out
> > > > soon.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com
> > > <mailto:
> > > > > >>> kabh
> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Stig,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For
> > > > pending
> > > > > >>>>> issues
> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new
> > pull
> > > > > >>>> request?
> > > > > >>>>>> We
> > > > > >>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple
> > rebase
> > > > > >>> (sadly
> > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That
> > issue
> > > > > >>>>> relates a
> > > > > >>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this
> week.
> > > > I'll
> > > > > >>>> try
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> get it too.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2
> and
> > > > > >>> 1.2.0 at
> > > > > >>>>>> next
> > > > > >>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > > > >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 작성:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
> > > > > >>> postponing
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the
> fix
> > > for
> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much
> > > > > >>> longer.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > >>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hello,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with
> lots
> > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/
> > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > >>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <
> kabhwan@gmail.com
> > > > > >>> <mailto:
> > > > > >>>>> kabh
> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them
> > are
> > > > > >>>>>>>> regarding
> > > > > >>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker
> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Like
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > >>>>>>>> available
> > > > > >>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress
> on
> > > > Storm
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue
> > left
> > > > on
> > > > > >>>>>>>> epic.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or
> more
> > of
> > > > > >>> them.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'll
> > > > > >>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm
> > not
> > > > > >>>>>>>> familiar
> > > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>> that module.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <
> > ptgoetz@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> <mailto:
> > > > > >>>>>> ptgo
> > > > > >>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate
> > > > (still
> > > > > >>>>>>>> some
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5
> or
> > > > > >>>>>>>> should we
> > > > > >>>>>>>> go
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> -Taylor
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
> > kabhwan@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> <mailto:
> > > > > >>>>>> kabh
> > > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi devs,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
> > Storm
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.0.4
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally
> > it
> > > > > >>>>>>>> looks
> > > > > >>>>>>>> like
> > > > > >>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
> > > quickly
> > > > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
> > include
> > > > > >>>>>>>> any
> > > > > >>>>>>>> bug
> > > > > >>>>>>>> fix
> > > > > >>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create
> > epic
> > > > > >>>>>>>> issues
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

Chandan,

I don't believe STORM-2549 is fixed in 1.1.2. We're hoping to release 1.2.0
soon, but if you need it now it's really easy to check out the Storm code
and build storm-kafka-client yourself. Check out the 1.x-branch and do "mvn
clean install -DskipTests" from the project root. The storm-kafka-client
jar will be in external/storm-kafka-client/target.

2018-01-14 9:01 GMT+01:00 chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>:

> +1 Any idea when is 1.1.2v coming out. Under tremendous pressure to upgrade
> storm-kafka-client due to STORM-2549
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549>. Is there any help
> needed towards that goal?
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Satish Duggana <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to start release process for 1.1.2v
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.
> > >
> > > 2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start the
> > release
> > > > process.
> > > >
> > > > -Taylor
> > > >
> > > > > On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be included
> in
> > > > Storm
> > > > > 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2 soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and now I
> > got
> > > > >> some time period to track again.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We have been delaying new release, since we have been focusing on
> > > 1.2.0
> > > > >> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised
> > > continuously.
> > > > >> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2 is
> > ready
> > > > to
> > > > >> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of Storm
> > > 1.2.0
> > > > >> because we have fixed another critical issues in core
> > (STORM-2231[1],
> > > > >> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in
> 1.1.x
> > > > version
> > > > >> line yet.
> > > > >> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not ported
> back
> > > to
> > > > >> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now, but
> > would
> > > > >> like to remind this so that we could start the process at least
> > > earlier
> > > > in
> > > > >> next year.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
> > > > >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > >님이
> > > > >> 작성:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
> > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes
> we
> > > > >>>> discussed
> > > > >>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods
> > and
> > > > >>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
> > renames
> > > > are
> > > > >>>>> breaking changes.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead making
> > the
> > > > >>> change?
> > > > >>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
> > > > >>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay will
> > be
> > > > very
> > > > >>>> short.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > >>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > > >>>> 작성:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > >>>> :
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes
> > we
> > > > >>>>> discussed
> > > > >>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new
> methods
> > > and
> > > > >>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
> > renames
> > > > >>> are
> > > > >>>>>> breaking changes.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The
> > pending
> > > > >>>> issues
> > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710
> > seems
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release
> > > post
> > > > >>>>> 1.2.0.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>> Arun
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
> > > > >>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of
> > one
> > > > >>>>> review
> > > > >>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get
> this
> > > > >>>> merged
> > > > >>>>>> soon.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of
> > the
> > > > >>>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
> > > > >>> https://github.com/
> > > > >>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3
> 911aa2226d>
> > > are
> > > > >>>>> fixed.
> > > > >>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I
> will
> > > > >>>> submit
> > > > >>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>> patch with the change.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Hugo
> > > > >>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a
> > > > >>> couple
> > > > >>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should
> > > > >>> improve
> > > > >>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
> > > > >>>> apache/storm/commit/
> > > > >>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a
> > JIRA,
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > > >>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> > > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the
> new
> > PR
> > > > >>> for
> > > > >>>>>> 2607
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org
> > > > >>> <mailto:
> > > > >>>>>> arunm
> > > > >>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out
> > > soon.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com
> > <mailto:
> > > > >>> kabh
> > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Stig,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For
> > > pending
> > > > >>>>> issues
> > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new
> pull
> > > > >>>> request?
> > > > >>>>>> We
> > > > >>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple
> rebase
> > > > >>> (sadly
> > > > >>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That
> issue
> > > > >>>>> relates a
> > > > >>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
> > > > >>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week.
> > > I'll
> > > > >>>> try
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> get it too.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and
> > > > >>> 1.2.0 at
> > > > >>>>>> next
> > > > >>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > > >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > >>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> > > > >>>>>>>> 작성:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
> > > > >>> postponing
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix
> > for
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much
> > > > >>> longer.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > >>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Hello,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots
> > of
> > > > >>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > >>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> Storm
> > > > >>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> > > > >>> <mailto:
> > > > >>>>> kabh
> > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them
> are
> > > > >>>>>>>> regarding
> > > > >>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
> > > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > > >>>>>>>> Like
> > > > >>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and
> will
> > be
> > > > >>>>>>>> available
> > > > >>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on
> > > Storm
> > > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
> > > > >>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue
> left
> > > on
> > > > >>>>>>>> epic.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more
> of
> > > > >>> them.
> > > > >>>>>>>> I'll
> > > > >>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm
> not
> > > > >>>>>>>> familiar
> > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> that module.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <
> ptgoetz@gmail.com
> > > > >>>> <mailto:
> > > > >>>>>> ptgo
> > > > >>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate
> > > (still
> > > > >>>>>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
> > > > >>>>>>>> should we
> > > > >>>>>>>> go
> > > > >>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> -Taylor
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
> kabhwan@gmail.com
> > > > >>>> <mailto:
> > > > >>>>>> kabh
> > > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Hi devs,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
> Storm
> > > > >>>>>>>> 1.0.4
> > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally
> it
> > > > >>>>>>>> looks
> > > > >>>>>>>> like
> > > > >>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > >>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
> > quickly
> > > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
> include
> > > > >>>>>>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>>> bug
> > > > >>>>>>>> fix
> > > > >>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create
> epic
> > > > >>>>>>>> issues
> > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by chandan singh <ck...@gmail.com>.

+1 Any idea when is 1.1.2v coming out. Under tremendous pressure to upgrade
storm-kafka-client due to STORM-2549
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549>. Is there any help
needed towards that goal?

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Satish Duggana <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 to start release process for 1.1.2v
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.
> >
> > 2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start the
> release
> > > process.
> > >
> > > -Taylor
> > >
> > > > On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be included in
> > > Storm
> > > > 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2 soon.
> > > >
> > > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >
> > > > 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> > > >
> > > >> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and now I
> got
> > > >> some time period to track again.
> > > >>
> > > >> We have been delaying new release, since we have been focusing on
> > 1.2.0
> > > >> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised
> > continuously.
> > > >> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
> > > >>
> > > >> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2 is
> ready
> > > to
> > > >> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of Storm
> > 1.2.0
> > > >> because we have fixed another critical issues in core
> (STORM-2231[1],
> > > >> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in 1.1.x
> > > version
> > > >> line yet.
> > > >> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not ported back
> > to
> > > >> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
> > > >>
> > > >> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now, but
> would
> > > >> like to remind this so that we could start the process at least
> > earlier
> > > in
> > > >> next year.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
> > > >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
> > > >>
> > > >> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > >님이
> > > >> 작성:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
> > > >>>> discussed
> > > >>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods
> and
> > > >>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
> renames
> > > are
> > > >>>>> breaking changes.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead making
> the
> > > >>> change?
> > > >>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
> > > >>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay will
> be
> > > very
> > > >>>> short.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > >>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > >>>> 작성:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > >>>> :
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes
> we
> > > >>>>> discussed
> > > >>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods
> > and
> > > >>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the
> renames
> > > >>> are
> > > >>>>>> breaking changes.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The
> pending
> > > >>>> issues
> > > >>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710
> seems
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release
> > post
> > > >>>>> 1.2.0.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>> Arun
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
> > > >>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of
> one
> > > >>>>> review
> > > >>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this
> > > >>>> merged
> > > >>>>>> soon.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of
> the
> > > >>>>> changes
> > > >>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
> > > >>> https://github.com/
> > > >>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>
> > are
> > > >>>>> fixed.
> > > >>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will
> > > >>>> submit
> > > >>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>> patch with the change.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>> Hugo
> > > >>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a
> > > >>> couple
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should
> > > >>> improve
> > > >>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
> > > >>>> apache/storm/commit/
> > > >>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a
> JIRA,
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > >>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new
> PR
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>>>> 2607
> > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org
> > > >>> <mailto:
> > > >>>>>> arunm
> > > >>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out
> > soon.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com
> <mailto:
> > > >>> kabh
> > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Stig,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For
> > pending
> > > >>>>> issues
> > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull
> > > >>>> request?
> > > >>>>>> We
> > > >>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase
> > > >>> (sadly
> > > >>>>> it
> > > >>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue
> > > >>>>> relates a
> > > >>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
> > > >>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week.
> > I'll
> > > >>>> try
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>> get it too.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and
> > > >>> 1.2.0 at
> > > >>>>>> next
> > > >>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > >>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> > > >>>>>>>> 작성:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
> > > >>> postponing
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix
> for
> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much
> > > >>> longer.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > >>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Hello,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots
> of
> > > >>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > >>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> Storm
> > > >>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > >>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> > > >>> <mailto:
> > > >>>>> kabh
> > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
> > > >>>>>>>> regarding
> > > >>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
> > > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > > >>>>>>>> Like
> > > >>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will
> be
> > > >>>>>>>> available
> > > >>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on
> > Storm
> > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
> > > >>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left
> > on
> > > >>>>>>>> epic.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of
> > > >>> them.
> > > >>>>>>>> I'll
> > > >>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
> > > >>>>>>>> familiar
> > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > >>>>>>>> that module.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com
> > > >>>> <mailto:
> > > >>>>>> ptgo
> > > >>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate
> > (still
> > > >>>>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
> > > >>>>>>>> should we
> > > >>>>>>>> go
> > > >>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> -Taylor
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> > > >>>> <mailto:
> > > >>>>>> kabh
> > > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Hi devs,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> > > >>>>>>>> 1.0.4
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> > > >>>>>>>> looks
> > > >>>>>>>> like
> > > >>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > >>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
> quickly
> > > >>>>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> > > >>>>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>> bug
> > > >>>>>>>> fix
> > > >>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> > > >>>>>>>> issues
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Satish Duggana <sa...@gmail.com>.

+1 to start release process for 1.1.2v

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.
>
> 2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:
>
> > +1
> >
> > If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start the release
> > process.
> >
> > -Taylor
> >
> > > On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be included in
> > Storm
> > > 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2 soon.
> > >
> > > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >
> > > 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> > >
> > >> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and now I got
> > >> some time period to track again.
> > >>
> > >> We have been delaying new release, since we have been focusing on
> 1.2.0
> > >> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised
> continuously.
> > >> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
> > >>
> > >> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2 is ready
> > to
> > >> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of Storm
> 1.2.0
> > >> because we have fixed another critical issues in core (STORM-2231[1],
> > >> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in 1.1.x
> > version
> > >> line yet.
> > >> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not ported back
> to
> > >> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
> > >>
> > >> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now, but would
> > >> like to remind this so that we could start the process at least
> earlier
> > in
> > >> next year.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >>
> > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
> > >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
> > >>
> > >> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > >님이
> > >> 작성:
> > >>
> > >>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
> > >>>
> > >>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
> > >>>> discussed
> > >>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
> > >>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames
> > are
> > >>>>> breaking changes.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead making the
> > >>> change?
> > >>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
> > >>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay will be
> > very
> > >>>> short.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > >>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > >>>> 작성:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > >>>> :
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
> > >>>>> discussed
> > >>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods
> and
> > >>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames
> > >>> are
> > >>>>>> breaking changes.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The pending
> > >>>> issues
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 seems
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> have
> > >>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release
> post
> > >>>>> 1.2.0.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>> Arun
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
> > >>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one
> > >>>>> review
> > >>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this
> > >>>> merged
> > >>>>>> soon.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the
> > >>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
> > >>> https://github.com/
> > >>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>
> are
> > >>>>> fixed.
> > >>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will
> > >>>> submit
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>>>> patch with the change.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>> Hugo
> > >>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a
> > >>> couple
> > >>>> of
> > >>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should
> > >>> improve
> > >>>>> some
> > >>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
> > >>>> apache/storm/commit/
> > >>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA,
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> all
> > >>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > >>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR
> > >>> for
> > >>>>>> 2607
> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org
> > >>> <mailto:
> > >>>>>> arunm
> > >>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out
> soon.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:
> > >>> kabh
> > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Stig,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For
> pending
> > >>>>> issues
> > >>>>>>>> on
> > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull
> > >>>> request?
> > >>>>>> We
> > >>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase
> > >>> (sadly
> > >>>>> it
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue
> > >>>>> relates a
> > >>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
> > >>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week.
> I'll
> > >>>> try
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> get it too.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and
> > >>> 1.2.0 at
> > >>>>>> next
> > >>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > >>>>> <
> > >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> > >>>>>>>> 작성:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
> > >>> postponing
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
> > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much
> > >>> longer.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > >>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hello,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
> > >>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > >>> with
> > >>>>>>>> Storm
> > >>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:
> > >>>>> kabh
> > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
> > >>>>>>>> regarding
> > >>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
> > >>>>>>>> releases.
> > >>>>>>>> Like
> > >>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
> > >>>>>>>> available
> > >>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on
> Storm
> > >>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
> > >>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left
> on
> > >>>>>>>> epic.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of
> > >>> them.
> > >>>>>>>> I'll
> > >>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
> > >>>>>>>> familiar
> > >>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> that module.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com
> > >>>> <mailto:
> > >>>>>> ptgo
> > >>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate
> (still
> > >>>>>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
> > >>>>>>>> should we
> > >>>>>>>> go
> > >>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> -Taylor
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> > >>>> <mailto:
> > >>>>>> kabh
> > >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi devs,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> > >>>>>>>> 1.0.4
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> > >>>>>>>> looks
> > >>>>>>>> like
> > >>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > >>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
> > >>>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> > >>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>> bug
> > >>>>>>>> fix
> > >>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> > >>>>>>>> issues
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

+1 for starting 1.1.2 release process.

2018-01-08 20:27 GMT+01:00 P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>:

> +1
>
> If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start the release
> process.
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be included in
> Storm
> > 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2 soon.
> >
> > -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
> > 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> >
> >> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and now I got
> >> some time period to track again.
> >>
> >> We have been delaying new release, since we have been focusing on 1.2.0
> >> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised continuously.
> >> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
> >>
> >> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2 is ready
> to
> >> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of Storm 1.2.0
> >> because we have fixed another critical issues in core (STORM-2231[1],
> >> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in 1.1.x
> version
> >> line yet.
> >> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not ported back to
> >> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
> >>
> >> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now, but would
> >> like to remind this so that we could start the process at least earlier
> in
> >> next year.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>
> >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
> >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
> >>
> >> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >님이
> >> 작성:
> >>
> >>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
> >>>
> >>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
> >>>> discussed
> >>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
> >>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames
> are
> >>>>> breaking changes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead making the
> >>> change?
> >>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
> >>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay will be
> very
> >>>> short.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> >>>> 작성:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >>>> :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
> >>>>> discussed
> >>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
> >>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames
> >>> are
> >>>>>> breaking changes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The pending
> >>>> issues
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 seems
> >>> to
> >>>>> have
> >>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release post
> >>>>> 1.2.0.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Arun
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
> >>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one
> >>>>> review
> >>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this
> >>>> merged
> >>>>>> soon.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the
> >>>>> changes
> >>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
> >>> https://github.com/
> >>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d> are
> >>>>> fixed.
> >>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will
> >>>> submit
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>> patch with the change.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Hugo
> >>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a
> >>> couple
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should
> >>> improve
> >>>>> some
> >>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
> >>>> apache/storm/commit/
> >>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA,
> >>> and
> >>>>> all
> >>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR
> >>> for
> >>>>>> 2607
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org
> >>> <mailto:
> >>>>>> arunm
> >>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:
> >>> kabh
> >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Stig,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending
> >>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull
> >>>> request?
> >>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase
> >>> (sadly
> >>>>> it
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue
> >>>>> relates a
> >>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
> >>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll
> >>>> try
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> get it too.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and
> >>> 1.2.0 at
> >>>>>> next
> >>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >>>>> <
> >>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> >>>>>>>> 작성:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
> >>> postponing
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much
> >>> longer.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
> >>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> >>> with
> >>>>>>>> Storm
> >>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> >>> <mailto:
> >>>>> kabh
> >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
> >>>>>>>> regarding
> >>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
> >>>>>>>> releases.
> >>>>>>>> Like
> >>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
> >>>>>>>> available
> >>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
> >>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
> >>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
> >>>>>>>> epic.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of
> >>> them.
> >>>>>>>> I'll
> >>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
> >>>>>>>> familiar
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> that module.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com
> >>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>> ptgo
> >>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
> >>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
> >>>>>>>> should we
> >>>>>>>> go
> >>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> >>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>> kabh
> >>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi devs,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> >>>>>>>> 1.0.4
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> >>>>>>>> looks
> >>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> >>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> >>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>> bug
> >>>>>>>> fix
> >>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> >>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.

+1

If there are no remaining issues to be included, we can start the release process.

-Taylor

> On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be included in Storm
> 1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2 soon.
> 
> -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> 
> 2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> 
>> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and now I got
>> some time period to track again.
>> 
>> We have been delaying new release, since we have been focusing on 1.2.0
>> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised continuously.
>> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
>> 
>> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2 is ready to
>> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of Storm 1.2.0
>> because we have fixed another critical issues in core (STORM-2231[1],
>> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in 1.1.x version
>> line yet.
>> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not ported back to
>> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
>> 
>> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now, but would
>> like to remind this so that we could start the process at least earlier in
>> next year.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> 
>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
>> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
>> 
>> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>님이
>> 작성:
>> 
>>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
>>> 
>>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
>>>> discussed
>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames are
>>>>> breaking changes.
>>>> 
>>>> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead making the
>>> change?
>>>> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
>>>> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
>>>> 
>>>> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay will be very
>>>> short.
>>>> 
>>>> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>>>> 작성:
>>>> 
>>>>> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
>>>> :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
>>>>> discussed
>>>>>> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
>>>>>> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames
>>> are
>>>>>> breaking changes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The pending
>>>> issues
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 seems
>>> to
>>>>> have
>>>>>>> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release post
>>>>> 1.2.0.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Arun
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
>>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one
>>>>> review
>>>>>>> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this
>>>> merged
>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the
>>>>> changes
>>>>>>> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
>>> https://github.com/
>>>>>>> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d> are
>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will
>>>> submit
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> patch with the change.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Hugo
>>>>>>>> [1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a
>>> couple
>>>> of
>>>>>>> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should
>>> improve
>>>>> some
>>>>>>> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
>>>> apache/storm/commit/
>>>>>>> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA,
>>> and
>>>>> all
>>>>>>> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
>>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR
>>> for
>>>>>> 2607
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org
>>> <mailto:
>>>>>> arunm
>>>>>>> @apache.org>>:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:
>>> kabh
>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Stig,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending
>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull
>>>> request?
>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>> are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase
>>> (sadly
>>>>> it
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue
>>>>> relates a
>>>>>>>> bug which we should handle it in time.
>>>>>>>> (The patch includes your work indeed.)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll
>>>> try
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> get it too.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and
>>> 1.2.0 at
>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>> week. Opinions anyone?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com
>>>>> <
>>>>>>> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
>>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
>>> postponing
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much
>>> longer.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
>>>>>>>> expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>>> with
>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>> 1.2.0 !
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:
>>>>> kabh
>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
>>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Remaining issues are below:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Storm 1.1.2
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Storm 1.2.0
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
>>>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>>> Like
>>>>>>>> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
>>>>>>>> available
>>>>>>>> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
>>>>>>>> 1.1.2,
>>>>>>>> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
>>>>>>>> epic.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of
>>> them.
>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>> try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
>>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> that module.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>> ptgo
>>>>>>> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
>>>>>>>> should we
>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>> ahead with a release?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>> kabh
>>>>>>> wan@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
>>>>>>>> 1.0.4
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
>>>>>>>> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> bug
>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> track them to make releases happening sooner.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.

Bump, does someone have issues which are necessary to be included in Storm
1.1.2? If not I think we should start release phase for 1.1.2 soon.

-Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

2017년 12월 28일 (목) 오후 3:16, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>님이 작성:

> I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and now I got
> some time period to track again.
>
> We have been delaying new release, since we have been focusing on 1.2.0
> and issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised continuously.
> (though things looks like going to be less critical)
>
> But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2 is ready to
> be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of Storm 1.2.0
> because we have fixed another critical issues in core (STORM-2231[1],
> STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in 1.1.x version
> line yet.
> (Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not ported back to
> 1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)
>
> It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now, but would
> like to remind this so that we could start the process at least earlier in
> next year.
>
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682
>
> 2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>님이
> 작성:
>
>> Looks like Hugo is working on it
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
>>
>> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > > I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
>> > discussed
>> > > were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
>> > > constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames are
>> > > breaking changes.
>> >
>> > Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead making the
>> change?
>> > I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
>> > (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
>> >
>> > I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay will be very
>> > short.
>> >
>> > 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>> > 작성:
>> >
>> > > +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
>> > >
>> > > 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
>> >:
>> > >
>> > > > I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
>> > > discussed
>> > > > were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
>> > > > constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames
>> are
>> > > > breaking changes.
>> > > >
>> > > > 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The pending
>> > issues
>> > > > in
>> > > > > the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 seems
>> to
>> > > have
>> > > > > been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release post
>> > > 1.2.0.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Arun
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <
>> hlouro@hortonworks.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one
>> > > review
>> > > > > but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this
>> > merged
>> > > > soon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the
>> > > changes
>> > > > > for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<
>> https://github.com/
>> > > > > apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d> are
>> > > fixed.
>> > > > > I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will
>> > submit
>> > > a
>> > > > > patch with the change.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Thanks,
>> > > > > >Hugo
>> > > > > >[1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a
>> couple
>> > of
>> > > > > clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should
>> improve
>> > > some
>> > > > > of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
>> > apache/storm/commit/
>> > > > > 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA,
>> and
>> > > all
>> > > > > the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> > > > stigdoessing@gmail.com<
>> > > > > mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR
>> for
>> > > > 2607
>> > > > > >https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org
>> <mailto:
>> > > > arunm
>> > > > > @apache.org>>:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >+1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:
>> kabh
>> > > > > wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Stig,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending
>> > > issues
>> > > > > >on
>> > > > > >Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull
>> > request?
>> > > > We
>> > > > > >are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase
>> (sadly
>> > > it
>> > > > is
>> > > > > >not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue
>> > > relates a
>> > > > > >bug which we should handle it in time.
>> > > > > >(The patch includes your work indeed.)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll
>> > try
>> > > to
>> > > > > >get it too.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and
>> 1.2.0 at
>> > > > next
>> > > > > >week. Opinions anyone?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Thanks,
>> > > > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> > stigdoessing@gmail.com
>> > > <
>> > > > > mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
>> > > > > >작성:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and
>> postponing
>> > the
>> > > > > >other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
>> > > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much
>> longer.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > > > > >avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Hello,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
>> > > > > >expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>> with
>> > > > > >Storm
>> > > > > >1.2.0 !
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Best regards,
>> > > > > >Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
>> <mailto:
>> > > kabh
>> > > > > wan@gmail.com>>:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
>> > > > > >regarding
>> > > > > >storm-kafka-client.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Remaining issues are below:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Storm 1.1.2
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
>> > > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
>> > > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Storm 1.2.0
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
>> > > > > >releases.
>> > > > > >Like
>> > > > > >I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
>> > > > > >available
>> > > > > >at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
>> > > > > >1.1.2,
>> > > > > >and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
>> > > > > >epic.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of
>> them.
>> > > > > >I'll
>> > > > > >try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
>> > > > > >familiar
>> > > > > >with
>> > > > > >that module.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Thanks,
>> > > > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com
>> > <mailto:
>> > > > ptgo
>> > > > > etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
>> > > > > >some
>> > > > > >ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
>> > > > > >should we
>> > > > > >go
>> > > > > >ahead with a release?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >-Taylor
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
>> > <mailto:
>> > > > kabh
>> > > > > wan@gmail.com>>
>> > > > > >wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Hi devs,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >We received a bug report (STORM-2682
>> > > > > ><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
>> > > > > >1.0.4
>> > > > > >and
>> > > > > >1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
>> > > > > >looks
>> > > > > >like
>> > > > > >pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
>> > > > > >So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
>> > > > > >for
>> > > > > >affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
>> > > > > >any
>> > > > > >bug
>> > > > > >fix
>> > > > > >issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
>> > > > > >issues
>> > > > > >and
>> > > > > >track them to make releases happening sooner.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >Thanks,
>> > > > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.

I have been really busy so couldn't care about releases, and now I got some
time period to track again.

We have been delaying new release, since we have been focusing on 1.2.0 and
issues relevant in storm-kafka-client have been raised continuously.
(though things looks like going to be less critical)

But other than storm-kafka-client issues, I think Storm 1.1.2 is ready to
be released, and we should release Storm 1.1.2 regardless of Storm 1.2.0
because we have fixed another critical issues in core (STORM-2231[1],
STORM-2682[2]) which are published to 1.0.5 but no release in 1.1.x version
line yet.
(Noting that some bugfixes on storm-kafka-client are not ported back to
1.1.x version line because of heavy divergence.)

It may not be good time to discuss since it is year-end now, but would like
to remind this so that we could start the process at least earlier in next
year.

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2231
2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682

2017년 10월 19일 (목) 오전 1:19, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>님이 작성:

> Looks like Hugo is working on it
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781
>
> 2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>
> > > I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
> > discussed
> > > were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
> > > constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames are
> > > breaking changes.
> >
> > Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead making the
> change?
> > I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
> > (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
> >
> > I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay will be very
> > short.
> >
> > 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > 작성:
> >
> > > +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
> > >
> > > 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
> > > discussed
> > > > were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
> > > > constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames
> are
> > > > breaking changes.
> > > >
> > > > 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The pending
> > issues
> > > > in
> > > > > the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 seems to
> > > have
> > > > > been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> > > > >
> > > > > If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release post
> > > 1.2.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Arun
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <hlouro@hortonworks.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one
> > > review
> > > > > but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this
> > merged
> > > > soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the
> > > changes
> > > > > for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<https://github.com/
> > > > > apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d> are
> > > fixed.
> > > > > I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will
> > submit
> > > a
> > > > > patch with the change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > >Hugo
> > > > > >[1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a
> couple
> > of
> > > > > clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should
> improve
> > > some
> > > > > of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
> > apache/storm/commit/
> > > > > 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA,
> and
> > > all
> > > > > the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > > stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> > > > > mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR
> for
> > > > 2607
> > > > > >https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org
> <mailto:
> > > > arunm
> > > > > @apache.org>>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >+1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:
> kabh
> > > > > wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Stig,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending
> > > issues
> > > > > >on
> > > > > >Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull
> > request?
> > > > We
> > > > > >are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase
> (sadly
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > > >not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue
> > > relates a
> > > > > >bug which we should handle it in time.
> > > > > >(The patch includes your work indeed.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll
> > try
> > > to
> > > > > >get it too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and 1.2.0
> at
> > > > next
> > > > > >week. Opinions anyone?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > <
> > > > > mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> > > > > >작성:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing
> > the
> > > > > >other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
> > > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > >avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
> > > > > >expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> with
> > > > > >Storm
> > > > > >1.2.0 !
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Best regards,
> > > > > >Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> <mailto:
> > > kabh
> > > > > wan@gmail.com>>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
> > > > > >regarding
> > > > > >storm-kafka-client.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Remaining issues are below:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Storm 1.1.2
> > > > > >
> > > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Storm 1.2.0
> > > > > >
> > > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
> > > > > >releases.
> > > > > >Like
> > > > > >I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
> > > > > >available
> > > > > >at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
> > > > > >1.1.2,
> > > > > >and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
> > > > > >epic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of
> them.
> > > > > >I'll
> > > > > >try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
> > > > > >familiar
> > > > > >with
> > > > > >that module.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com
> > <mailto:
> > > > ptgo
> > > > > etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
> > > > > >some
> > > > > >ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
> > > > > >should we
> > > > > >go
> > > > > >ahead with a release?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-Taylor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> > <mailto:
> > > > kabh
> > > > > wan@gmail.com>>
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Hi devs,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > ><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> > > > > >1.0.4
> > > > > >and
> > > > > >1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> > > > > >looks
> > > > > >like
> > > > > >pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > >So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
> > > > > >for
> > > > > >affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> > > > > >any
> > > > > >bug
> > > > > >fix
> > > > > >issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> > > > > >issues
> > > > > >and
> > > > > >track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

Looks like Hugo is working on it
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2781

2017-10-18 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:

> > I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
> discussed
> > were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
> > constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames are
> > breaking changes.
>
> Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead making the change?
> I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
> (Will Hugo submit the patch?)
>
> I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay will be very
> short.
>
> 2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> 작성:
>
> > +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
> >
> > 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
> > discussed
> > > were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
> > > constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames are
> > > breaking changes.
> > >
> > > 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The pending
> issues
> > > in
> > > > the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 seems to
> > have
> > > > been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> > > >
> > > > If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release post
> > 1.2.0.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Arun
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <hl...@hortonworks.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one
> > review
> > > > but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this
> merged
> > > soon.
> > > > >
> > > > >However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the
> > changes
> > > > for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<https://github.com/
> > > > apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d> are
> > fixed.
> > > > I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will
> submit
> > a
> > > > patch with the change.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks,
> > > > >Hugo
> > > > >[1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a couple
> of
> > > > clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should improve
> > some
> > > > of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/
> apache/storm/commit/
> > > > 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA, and
> > all
> > > > the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> > > > >
> > > > >On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> > > > mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR for
> > > 2607
> > > > >https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> > > > >
> > > > >Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> > > > >
> > > > >2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org<mailto:
> > > arunm
> > > > @apache.org>>:
> > > > >
> > > > >+1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:kabh
> > > > wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >Stig,
> > > > >
> > > > >Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending
> > issues
> > > > >on
> > > > >Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> > > > >
> > > > >For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull
> request?
> > > We
> > > > >are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase (sadly
> > it
> > > is
> > > > >not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue
> > relates a
> > > > >bug which we should handle it in time.
> > > > >(The patch includes your work indeed.)
> > > > >
> > > > >For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll
> try
> > to
> > > > >get it too.
> > > > >
> > > > >Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and 1.2.0 at
> > > next
> > > > >week. Opinions anyone?
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks,
> > > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >
> > > > >2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > <
> > > > mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> > > > >작성:
> > > > >
> > > > >Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing
> the
> > > > >other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
> > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.
> > > > >
> > > > >2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > >avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > >Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
> > > > >expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with
> > > > >Storm
> > > > >1.2.0 !
> > > > >
> > > > >Best regards,
> > > > >Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:
> > kabh
> > > > wan@gmail.com>>:
> > > > >
> > > > >Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
> > > > >regarding
> > > > >storm-kafka-client.
> > > > >
> > > > >Remaining issues are below:
> > > > >
> > > > >Storm 1.1.2
> > > > >
> > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > > >
> > > > >Storm 1.2.0
> > > > >
> > > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > >
> > > > >Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
> > > > >releases.
> > > > >Like
> > > > >I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
> > > > >available
> > > > >at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
> > > > >1.1.2,
> > > > >and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
> > > > >epic.
> > > > >
> > > > >Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them.
> > > > >I'll
> > > > >try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
> > > > >familiar
> > > > >with
> > > > >that module.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks,
> > > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >
> > > > >2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com
> <mailto:
> > > ptgo
> > > > etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> > > > >
> > > > >It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
> > > > >some
> > > > >ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> > > > >
> > > > >Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
> > > > >should we
> > > > >go
> > > > >ahead with a release?
> > > > >
> > > > >-Taylor
> > > > >
> > > > >On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> <mailto:
> > > kabh
> > > > wan@gmail.com>>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >Hi devs,
> > > > >
> > > > >We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > ><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> > > > >1.0.4
> > > > >and
> > > > >1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> > > > >looks
> > > > >like
> > > > >pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > >So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
> > > > >for
> > > > >affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > >Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> > > > >any
> > > > >bug
> > > > >fix
> > > > >issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> > > > >issues
> > > > >and
> > > > >track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks,
> > > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.

> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
discussed
> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames are
> breaking changes.

Suppose the changes will be minor, then why not go ahead making the change?
I guess it doesn't need much efforts to do.
(Will Hugo submit the patch?)

I'm +1 to get it before 1.2.0, and also hope that the delay will be very
short.

2017년 10월 14일 (토) 오후 6:05, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>님이
작성:

> +1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)
>
> 2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
>
> > I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we
> discussed
> > were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
> > constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames are
> > breaking changes.
> >
> > 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The pending issues
> > in
> > > the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 seems to
> have
> > > been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> > >
> > > If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release post
> 1.2.0.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Arun
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <hl...@hortonworks.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one
> review
> > > but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this merged
> > soon.
> > > >
> > > >However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the
> changes
> > > for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<https://github.com/
> > > apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d> are
> fixed.
> > > I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will submit
> a
> > > patch with the change.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Hugo
> > > >[1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a couple of
> > > clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should improve
> some
> > > of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/apache/storm/commit/
> > > 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA, and
> all
> > > the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> > > >
> > > >On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> > > mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR for
> > 2607
> > > >https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> > > >
> > > >Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> > > >
> > > >2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org<mailto:
> > arunm
> > > @apache.org>>:
> > > >
> > > >+1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:kabh
> > > wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Stig,
> > > >
> > > >Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending
> issues
> > > >on
> > > >Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> > > >
> > > >For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull request?
> > We
> > > >are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase (sadly
> it
> > is
> > > >not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue
> relates a
> > > >bug which we should handle it in time.
> > > >(The patch includes your work indeed.)
> > > >
> > > >For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll try
> to
> > > >get it too.
> > > >
> > > >Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and 1.2.0 at
> > next
> > > >week. Opinions anyone?
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >
> > > >2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
> <
> > > mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> > > >작성:
> > > >
> > > >Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing the
> > > >other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
> > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.
> > > >
> > > >2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > >avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > >:
> > > >
> > > >Hello,
> > > >
> > > >I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
> > > >expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with
> > > >Storm
> > > >1.2.0 !
> > > >
> > > >Best regards,
> > > >Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:
> kabh
> > > wan@gmail.com>>:
> > > >
> > > >Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> > > >
> > > >I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
> > > >regarding
> > > >storm-kafka-client.
> > > >
> > > >Remaining issues are below:
> > > >
> > > >Storm 1.1.2
> > > >
> > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > >
> > > >Storm 1.2.0
> > > >
> > > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > >
> > > >Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
> > > >releases.
> > > >Like
> > > >I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
> > > >available
> > > >at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
> > > >1.1.2,
> > > >and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
> > > >epic.
> > > >
> > > >Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them.
> > > >I'll
> > > >try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
> > > >familiar
> > > >with
> > > >that module.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >
> > > >2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com<mailto:
> > ptgo
> > > etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> > > >
> > > >It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
> > > >some
> > > >ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> > > >
> > > >Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
> > > >should we
> > > >go
> > > >ahead with a release?
> > > >
> > > >-Taylor
> > > >
> > > >On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:
> > kabh
> > > wan@gmail.com>>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Hi devs,
> > > >
> > > >We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > ><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> > > >1.0.4
> > > >and
> > > >1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> > > >looks
> > > >like
> > > >pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > >So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
> > > >for
> > > >affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > >Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> > > >any
> > > >bug
> > > >fix
> > > >issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> > > >issues
> > > >and
> > > >track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>.

+1 for a short delay until 1.2.0 is avaible :)

2017-10-14 8:48 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:

> I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we discussed
> were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
> constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames are
> breaking changes.
>
> 2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
>
> > I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The pending issues
> in
> > the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 seems to have
> > been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
> >
> > If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release post 1.2.0.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Arun
> >
> >
> > On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <hl...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one review
> > but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this merged
> soon.
> > >
> > >However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the changes
> > for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<https://github.com/
> > apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d> are fixed.
> > I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will submit a
> > patch with the change.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Hugo
> > >[1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a couple of
> > clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should improve some
> > of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/apache/storm/commit/
> > 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA, and all
> > the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> > >
> > >On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> > mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR for
> 2607
> > >https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> > >
> > >Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> > >
> > >2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org<mailto:
> arunm
> > @apache.org>>:
> > >
> > >+1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:kabh
> > wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > >Stig,
> > >
> > >Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending issues
> > >on
> > >Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> > >
> > >For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull request?
> We
> > >are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase (sadly it
> is
> > >not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue relates a
> > >bug which we should handle it in time.
> > >(The patch includes your work indeed.)
> > >
> > >For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll try to
> > >get it too.
> > >
> > >Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and 1.2.0 at
> next
> > >week. Opinions anyone?
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >
> > >2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> > mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> > >작성:
> > >
> > >Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing the
> > >other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
> > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.
> > >
> > >2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > >avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> > >:
> > >
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
> > >expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with
> > >Storm
> > >1.2.0 !
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > >
> > >
> > >2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:kabh
> > wan@gmail.com>>:
> > >
> > >Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> > >
> > >I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
> > >regarding
> > >storm-kafka-client.
> > >
> > >Remaining issues are below:
> > >
> > >Storm 1.1.2
> > >
> > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > >
> > >Storm 1.2.0
> > >
> > >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > >
> > >Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
> > >releases.
> > >Like
> > >I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
> > >available
> > >at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
> > >1.1.2,
> > >and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
> > >epic.
> > >
> > >Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them.
> > >I'll
> > >try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
> > >familiar
> > >with
> > >that module.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >
> > >2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com<mailto:
> ptgo
> > etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> > >
> > >It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
> > >some
> > >ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> > >
> > >Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
> > >should we
> > >go
> > >ahead with a release?
> > >
> > >-Taylor
> > >
> > >On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:
> kabh
> > wan@gmail.com>>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >Hi devs,
> > >
> > >We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > ><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> > >1.0.4
> > >and
> > >1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> > >looks
> > >like
> > >pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > >So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
> > >for
> > >affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > >
> > >Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> > >any
> > >bug
> > >fix
> > >issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> > >issues
> > >and
> > >track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

I'm hoping the delay for 1.2.0 will be very short. The changes we discussed
were minor, and had to do with renaming some of the new methods and
constants. It would be good to do before 1.2.0 because the renames are
breaking changes.

2017-10-14 5:33 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:

> I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The pending issues in
> the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 seems to have
> been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?
>
> If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release post 1.2.0.
>
> Thanks,
> Arun
>
>
> On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <hl...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> >I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one review
> but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this merged soon.
> >
> >However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the changes
> for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<https://github.com/
> apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d> are fixed.
> I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will submit a
> patch with the change.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Hugo
> >[1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a couple of
> clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should improve some
> of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/apache/storm/commit/
> 48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA, and all
> the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
> >
> >On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR for 2607
> >https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
> >
> >Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
> >
> >2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org<mailto:arunm
> @apache.org>>:
> >
> >+1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:kabh
> wan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >Stig,
> >
> >Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending issues
> >on
> >Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> >
> >For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull request? We
> >are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase (sadly it is
> >not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue relates a
> >bug which we should handle it in time.
> >(The patch includes your work indeed.)
> >
> >For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll try to
> >get it too.
> >
> >Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and 1.2.0 at next
> >week. Opinions anyone?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
> >2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com<
> mailto:stigdoessing@gmail.com>>님이
> >작성:
> >
> >Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing the
> >other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
> >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.
> >
> >2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
> >:
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
> >expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with
> >Storm
> >1.2.0 !
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >
> >
> >2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:kabh
> wan@gmail.com>>:
> >
> >Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> >
> >I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
> >regarding
> >storm-kafka-client.
> >
> >Remaining issues are below:
> >
> >Storm 1.1.2
> >
> >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> >
> >Storm 1.2.0
> >
> >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> >
> >Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
> >releases.
> >Like
> >I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
> >available
> >at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
> >1.1.2,
> >and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
> >epic.
> >
> >Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them.
> >I'll
> >try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
> >familiar
> >with
> >that module.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
> >2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com<mailto:ptgo
> etz@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
> >
> >It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
> >some
> >ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> >
> >Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
> >should we
> >go
> >ahead with a release?
> >
> >-Taylor
> >
> >On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com<mailto:kabh
> wan@gmail.com>>
> >wrote:
> >
> >Hi devs,
> >
> >We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> ><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> >1.0.4
> >and
> >1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> >looks
> >like
> >pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> >So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
> >for
> >affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> >
> >Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> >any
> >bug
> >fix
> >issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> >issues
> >and
> >track them to make releases happening sooner.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>.

I was hoping we will get 1.2.0 out along with 1.1.2. The pending issues in the epic https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 seems to have been addressed. Can you add the new issue to the epic?

If its not something critical we can do it in a minor release post 1.2.0.

Thanks,
Arun


On 10/14/17, 3:50 AM, "Hugo Da Cruz Louro" <hl...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

>I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one review but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this merged soon.
>
>However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the changes for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<https://github.com/apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d> are fixed. I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will submit a patch with the change.
>
>Thanks,
>Hugo
>[1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a couple of clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should improve some of the changes in this  patch<https://github.com/apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA, and all the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.
>
>On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR for 2607
>https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.
>
>Beginning release next week sounds good to me.
>
>2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>>:
>
>+1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.
>
>
>
>
>On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <ka...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>Stig,
>
>Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending issues
>on
>Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
>
>For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull request? We
>are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase (sadly it is
>not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue relates a
>bug which we should handle it in time.
>(The patch includes your work indeed.)
>
>For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll try to
>get it too.
>
>Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and 1.2.0 at next
>week. Opinions anyone?
>
>Thanks,
>Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
>2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>>님이
>작성:
>
>Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing the
>other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.
>
>2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
>:
>
>Hello,
>
>I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
>expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with
>Storm
>1.2.0 !
>
>Best regards,
>Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>
>
>2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>>:
>
>Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
>
>I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
>regarding
>storm-kafka-client.
>
>Remaining issues are below:
>
>Storm 1.1.2
>
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
>
>Storm 1.2.0
>
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>
>Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
>releases.
>Like
>I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
>available
>at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
>1.1.2,
>and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
>epic.
>
>Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them.
>I'll
>try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
>familiar
>with
>that module.
>
>Thanks,
>Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
>2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>>님이 작성:
>
>It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
>some
>ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
>
>Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
>should we
>go
>ahead with a release?
>
>-Taylor
>
>On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>>
>wrote:
>
>Hi devs,
>
>We received a bug report (STORM-2682
><https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
>1.0.4
>and
>1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
>looks
>like
>pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
>So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
>for
>affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
>
>Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
>any
>bug
>fix
>issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
>issues
>and
>track them to make releases happening sooner.
>
>Thanks,
>Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Hugo Da Cruz Louro <hl...@hortonworks.com>.

I am +1 to releasing 1.1.2 right away. I am in the middle of one review but I will finish it in the next day, such that we can get this merged soon.

However, we need to hold onto releasing 1.2.0 until some of the changes for ProcessingGuarantee that got in this patch<https://github.com/apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d> are fixed. I briefly discussed [1] this issue with @Stig on Gitter, I will submit a patch with the change.

Thanks,
Hugo
[1] - We did not have a technical discussion. I just asked a couple of clarifying questions and then the idea surged that we should improve some of the changes in this patch<https://github.com/apache/storm/commit/48f6969027e7b02a5b9220577189d3911aa2226d>. I will create a JIRA, and all the discussion go through either JIRA or dev email list.

On Oct 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR for 2607
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.

Beginning release next week sounds good to me.

2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>>:

+1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.

On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <ka...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Stig,

Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending issues
on
Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.

For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull request? We
are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase (sadly it is
not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue relates a
bug which we should handle it in time.
(The patch includes your work indeed.)

For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll try to
get it too.

Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and 1.2.0 at next
week. Opinions anyone?

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>>님이
작성:

Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing the
other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.

2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
avermeerbergen@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>
:

Hello,

I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with
Storm
1.2.0 !

Best regards,
Alexandre Vermeerbergen

2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>>:

Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.

I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
regarding
storm-kafka-client.

Remaining issues are below:

Storm 1.1.2

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666

Storm 1.2.0

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648

Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
releases.
Like
I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
available
at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
1.1.2,
and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
epic.

Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them.
I'll
try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
familiar
with
that module.

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>>님이 작성:

It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
some
ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).

Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
should we
go
ahead with a release?

-Taylor

On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Hi devs,

We received a bug report (STORM-2682
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
1.0.4
and
1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
looks
like
pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
for
affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?

Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
any
bug
fix
issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
issues
and
track them to make releases happening sooner.

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

Thanks Jungtaek, that sounds like a good plan. Here's the new PR for 2607
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2367.

Beginning release next week sounds good to me.

2017-10-10 17:42 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:

> +1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.
>
>
>
>
> On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Stig,
> >
> >Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending issues
> on
> >Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
> >
> >For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull request? We
> >are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase (sadly it is
> >not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue relates a
> >bug which we should handle it in time.
> >(The patch includes your work indeed.)
> >
> >For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll try to
> >get it too.
> >
> >Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and 1.2.0 at next
> >week. Opinions anyone?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
> >2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>님이
> 작성:
> >
> >> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing the
> >> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.
> >>
> >> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> >> >:
> >>
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
> >> > expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with
> Storm
> >> > 1.2.0 !
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> > > Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are
> regarding
> >> > > storm-kafka-client.
> >> > >
> >> > > Remaining issues are below:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Storm 1.1.2
> >> > >
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> >> > >
> >> > > > Storm 1.2.0
> >> > >
> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> >> > >
> >> > > Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for
> releases.
> >> > Like
> >> > > I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
> >> > available
> >> > > at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
> >> 1.1.2,
> >> > > and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on
> epic.
> >> > >
> >> > > Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them.
> >> I'll
> >> > > try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not
> familiar
> >> > with
> >> > > that module.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >> > >
> >> > > 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> >> > >
> >> > > > It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
> >> some
> >> > > > ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or
> should we
> >> > go
> >> > > > ahead with a release?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -Taylor
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Hi devs,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> >> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> 1.0.4
> >> > and
> >> > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> looks
> >> > > like
> >> > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> >> > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
> for
> >> > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> any
> >> bug
> >> > > fix
> >> > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> >> issues
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>.

+1 for addressing the pending reviews and getting 1.2.0 out soon.




On 10/10/17, 6:14 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Stig,
>
>Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending issues on
>Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.
>
>For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull request? We
>are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase (sadly it is
>not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue relates a
>bug which we should handle it in time.
>(The patch includes your work indeed.)
>
>For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll try to
>get it too.
>
>Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and 1.2.0 at next
>week. Opinions anyone?
>
>Thanks,
>Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
>2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
>
>> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing the
>> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.
>>
>> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com
>> >:
>>
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
>> > expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with Storm
>> > 1.2.0 !
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>> >
>> >
>> > 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > > Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
>> > >
>> > > I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are regarding
>> > > storm-kafka-client.
>> > >
>> > > Remaining issues are below:
>> > >
>> > > > Storm 1.1.2
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
>> > >
>> > > > Storm 1.2.0
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>> > >
>> > > Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for releases.
>> > Like
>> > > I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
>> > available
>> > > at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
>> 1.1.2,
>> > > and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on epic.
>> > >
>> > > Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them.
>> I'll
>> > > try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not familiar
>> > with
>> > > that module.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > >
>> > > 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
>> > >
>> > > > It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
>> some
>> > > > ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
>> > > >
>> > > > Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or should we
>> > go
>> > > > ahead with a release?
>> > > >
>> > > > -Taylor
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hi devs,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
>> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4
>> > and
>> > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks
>> > > like
>> > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
>> > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
>> > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any
>> bug
>> > > fix
>> > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
>> issues
>> > > and
>> > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.

Stig,

Let's just handle all the issues pending Storm 1.1.2. For pending issues on
Storm 1.2.0, I already handled all the things.

For STORM-2607, could you just take over and craft a new pull request? We
are waiting more than 2 months after requesting simple rebase (sadly it is
not done yet), which I don't think it's acceptable. That issue relates a
bug which we should handle it in time.
(The patch includes your work indeed.)

For STORM-2549, let's see someone could review in this week. I'll try to
get it too.

Then I think we can start release phase for Storm 1.1.2 and 1.2.0 at next
week. Opinions anyone?

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

2017년 10월 10일 (화) 오전 4:02, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>님이 작성:

> Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing the
> other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.
>
> 2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
> > expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with Storm
> > 1.2.0 !
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >
> >
> > 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> > >
> > > I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are regarding
> > > storm-kafka-client.
> > >
> > > Remaining issues are below:
> > >
> > > > Storm 1.1.2
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > >
> > > > Storm 1.2.0
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > >
> > > Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for releases.
> > Like
> > > I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
> > available
> > > at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm
> 1.1.2,
> > > and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on epic.
> > >
> > > Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them.
> I'll
> > > try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not familiar
> > with
> > > that module.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >
> > > 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> > >
> > > > It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still
> some
> > > > ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or should we
> > go
> > > > ahead with a release?
> > > >
> > > > -Taylor
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > >
> > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4
> > and
> > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks
> > > like
> > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
> > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any
> bug
> > > fix
> > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> issues
> > > and
> > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

Maybe we would be better off releasing 1.1.2 as is, and postponing the
other issues to 1.2.0? I don't think we should delay the fix for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682 for much longer.

2017-09-22 14:50 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <avermeerbergen@gmail.com
>:

> Hello,
>
> I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
> expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with Storm
> 1.2.0 !
>
> Best regards,
> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>
>
> 2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
> >
> > I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are regarding
> > storm-kafka-client.
> >
> > Remaining issues are below:
> >
> > > Storm 1.1.2
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> >
> > > Storm 1.2.0
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> >
> > Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for releases.
> Like
> > I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be
> available
> > at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm 1.1.2,
> > and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on epic.
> >
> > Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them. I'll
> > try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not familiar
> with
> > that module.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
> > 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> >
> > > It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still some
> > > ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> > >
> > > Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or should we
> go
> > > ahead with a release?
> > >
> > > -Taylor
> > >
> > > > On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi devs,
> > > >
> > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4
> and
> > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks
> > like
> > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
> > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any bug
> > fix
> > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic issues
> > and
> > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>.

Hello,

I don't know if that help, but we're still waiting with lots of
expectations https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 with Storm
1.2.0 !

Best regards,
Alexandre Vermeerbergen


2017-09-22 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:

> Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.
>
> I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are regarding
> storm-kafka-client.
>
> Remaining issues are below:
>
> > Storm 1.1.2
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
>
> > Storm 1.2.0
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>
> Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for releases. Like
> I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be available
> at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm 1.1.2,
> and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on epic.
>
> Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them. I'll
> try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not familiar with
> that module.
>
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
> 2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
>
> > It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still some
> > ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
> >
> > Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or should we go
> > ahead with a release?
> >
> > -Taylor
> >
> > > On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi devs,
> > >
> > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4 and
> > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks
> like
> > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
> > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > >
> > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any bug
> fix
> > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic issues
> and
> > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.

Looks like three weeks went by from initiating the thread.

I'm seeing some issues pending for review and all of them are regarding
storm-kafka-client.

Remaining issues are below:

> Storm 1.1.2

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666

> Storm 1.2.0

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648

Please note that above issues are 'effectively' blocker for releases. Like
I said Storm 1.1.1 has critical issue which is fixed and will be available
at Storm 1.1.2, so at least I'd like to see the progress on Storm 1.1.2,
and ideally with Storm 1.2.0 since there's only one issue left on epic.

Please finish reviewing if you are in reviewing one or more of them. I'll
try to start reviewing them but take some times since I'm not familiar with
that module.

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

2017년 8월 30일 (수) 오전 2:45, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>님이 작성:

> It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still some
> ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).
>
> Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or should we go
> ahead with a release?
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4 and
> > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks like
> > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
> > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> >
> > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any bug fix
> > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic issues and
> > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.

It looks to me like 1.0.5 is ready for a release candidate (still some ongoing work for 1.1.2, but likely soon).

Is there anything else we would want to include in 1.0.5 or should we go ahead with a release?

-Taylor

> On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi devs,
> 
> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4 and
> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks like
> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> 
> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any bug fix
> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic issues and
> track them to make releases happening sooner.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

I've cherry picked the following issues from 1.x to 1.1.x
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512

I've attached the unresolved issues to the epics I think make sense. The
other issues all break or deprecate parts of the API in some way. I'm a
little unsure about 2675, so I put it in 1.2.0.

2017-08-28 7:35 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:

> Ah OK. It doesn't look like blocker if it is not by default. Still OK to
> port back to 1.1.2 since it is clear and critical bug about newly
> introduced feature.
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 at 2:28 PM Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sure, I'll take a look at the issues later today.
> >
> > I don't think 2541 is a blocker for 1.1.2. Manual partition assignment
> was
> > only added as an option in 1.1.0
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2236, and becomes the
> default
> > option in 1.2.0. In 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 the spout can start and run with the
> > original Subscription implementation. It's only unable to start if the
> user
> > configures the spout to use the new Subscription implementation. I'd be
> > okay with pulling it back to 1.1.2, since the changed APIs are on the
> class
> > that doesn't work.
> >
> > 2017-08-28 5:17 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Looks like there're no issues to add to Storm 1.0.5. No need to have
> epic
> > > issue for that, just need to prepare release phase.
> > >
> > > While skimming Stig's proposed list, STORM-2541 looks like a 'blocker'
> > for
> > > 1.1.2 given that its description - Spout is unable to start - and the
> bug
> > > affects 1.1.0 and above. (if the spout just unable to start, let's
> modify
> > > its priority to at least critical, even blocker)
> > > Unless we have a workaround to not breaking public API, we have no
> choice
> > > to pull the breaking change to 1.1.2.
> > >
> > > I couldn't decide for other issues about storm-kafka-client. I just
> > created
> > > epic issues for 1.1.2 and 1.2.0, and ask a favor of assigning issues to
> > > either 1.1.2 (they'll go with 1.2.0) or 1.2.0 epic issue. Stig, could
> you
> > > help me to do this?
> > >
> > > 1.1.2: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2709
> > > 1.2.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710
> > >
> > > For me there seems no other pending issues on three releases except
> > > storm-kafka-client things. Please share to this thread if someone found
> > > any.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >
> > > 2017년 8월 28일 (월) 오전 6:03, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > 작성:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > If https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 can't be
> available
> > > > before Storm 1.2.0 then I volunteer to feedback on Storm 1.2.0
> Release
> > > > Candidate as soon as it'll be available.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Alexandre
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-08-27 22:59 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, releasing 1.2.0 soon would be a better solution I think,
> ideally
> > > we
> > > > > could include all the issues I listed above. We should probably get
> > > 1.0.5
> > > > > and 1.1.2 out first though since 2682 seems pretty crippling from
> the
> > > > > description.
> > > > >
> > > > > I misremembered earlier, I don't think we've broken the
> > > > storm-kafka-client
> > > > > API for a while, we've just deprecated a lot of stuff, except for
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2223 which broke an API that
> > > > wouldn't
> > > > > have been possible to use anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-08-27 1:11 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > IMHO, we still have a chance to respect semver via planning
> release
> > > > 1.2.0
> > > > > > sooner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1.2.0 will bring some other side of improvements as well as
> > > > > > storm-kafka-client (state backend, and ES connector, and so on),
> > so I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > it's worth to. Storm 1.1.0 was released over 4 months ago, so I
> > don't
> > > > > feel
> > > > > > too hasty to discuss about 1.2.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Non-bug type issues resolved as 1.2.0 are below:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > > > > > 3D%20STORM%20and%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%
> > > > > > 20and%20resolution%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Fixed%2C%20Done)
> > > > > > %20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not%
> > > > > > 20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C%201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4%
> > > > > > 2C%201.1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2)%20and%20type%20!%3D%20Bug
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only thing is how much the release phase requires efforts
> from
> > > both
> > > > > > release manager and community participating to verify the
> release,
> > > > given
> > > > > > that I already proposed two releases. Taylor has been
> volunteering
> > > the
> > > > > > heavy load of releasing all the time, so maybe need to hear his
> > > opinion
> > > > > > about this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017년 8월 27일 (일) 오전 6:12, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > >님이
> > > > > > 작성:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jungtaek,
> > > > > > > I agree that we should provide a less buggy storm-kafka-client
> > > module
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > soon as possible. I'm happy to ignore semver for it for a few
> > > > versions,
> > > > > > > since it still seems pretty common that we have to break the
> API
> > to
> > > > > fix a
> > > > > > > bug or unintended behavior. If we're putting 2648 into 1.1.2,
> we
> > > > should
> > > > > > > also pull back a lot of the fixes targeted for 1.2.0. The list
> is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > resolved, but only applied to 1.x not 1.1.x
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2640
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2548
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2506
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > pending, fix available but needs review, then 1.x backport
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I may have missed some, others can supplement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alexandre,
> > > > > > > If we're ignoring semver for storm-kafka-client I don't mind
> > > putting
> > > > > 2648
> > > > > > > in 1.1.2. I just wanted to suggest how you can avoid being
> > blocked
> > > by
> > > > > > 2648
> > > > > > > until there's a proper release of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-08-26 15:12 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stig,
> > > > > > > > I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as
> > stable
> > > as
> > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on
> > > > storm-kafka-client?
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alexandre,
> > > > > > > > STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the
> type
> > > of
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we
> > > could
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs
> > consensus
> > > > > > anyway.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > > > > > > 작성:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello Stig,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For production, we try no to use PR branches but only
> stable
> > /
> > > > > > > > officialized
> > > > > > > > > versions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old
> > > Storm
> > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > > client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are
> compatible
> > > > with
> > > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > > 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a
> > > > > performance
> > > > > > > cost
> > > > > > > > > (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and
> > > Kafka
> > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to
> its
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker
> > 0.10
> > > > > > clusters
> > > > > > > > > urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't
> > possible
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > Kafa
> > > > > > > > > clients < 0.10
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for
> > > > production
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so
> > we're
> > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix
> > for
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hope it clarifies,
> > > > > > > > > Alexandre
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > > > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I
> > > > think.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I
> think
> > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > good to get
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675,
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
> > > > > > > > > > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe
> > that
> > > > > > > > storm-kafka
> > > > > > > > > > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still
> works
> > > for
> > > > me
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > on an 0.11 broker.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > > > > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > > > > > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have
> latency
> > > etc
> > > > > > stats
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not
> > > having
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib
> > > (limited
> > > > to
> > > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka
> > 0.10.x
> > > > > > > > > > compatibility).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Alexandre
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <
> > kabhwan@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>)
> on
> > > > Storm
> > > > > > > 1.0.4
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update.
> > > Personally
> > > > it
> > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix
> releases
> > > > > quickly
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
> > > > include
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > bug
> > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can
> > create
> > > > > epic
> > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.

Ah OK. It doesn't look like blocker if it is not by default. Still OK to
port back to 1.1.2 since it is clear and critical bug about newly
introduced feature.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 at 2:28 PM Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sure, I'll take a look at the issues later today.
>
> I don't think 2541 is a blocker for 1.1.2. Manual partition assignment was
> only added as an option in 1.1.0
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2236, and becomes the default
> option in 1.2.0. In 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 the spout can start and run with the
> original Subscription implementation. It's only unable to start if the user
> configures the spout to use the new Subscription implementation. I'd be
> okay with pulling it back to 1.1.2, since the changed APIs are on the class
> that doesn't work.
>
> 2017-08-28 5:17 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Looks like there're no issues to add to Storm 1.0.5. No need to have epic
> > issue for that, just need to prepare release phase.
> >
> > While skimming Stig's proposed list, STORM-2541 looks like a 'blocker'
> for
> > 1.1.2 given that its description - Spout is unable to start - and the bug
> > affects 1.1.0 and above. (if the spout just unable to start, let's modify
> > its priority to at least critical, even blocker)
> > Unless we have a workaround to not breaking public API, we have no choice
> > to pull the breaking change to 1.1.2.
> >
> > I couldn't decide for other issues about storm-kafka-client. I just
> created
> > epic issues for 1.1.2 and 1.2.0, and ask a favor of assigning issues to
> > either 1.1.2 (they'll go with 1.2.0) or 1.2.0 epic issue. Stig, could you
> > help me to do this?
> >
> > 1.1.2: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2709
> > 1.2.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710
> >
> > For me there seems no other pending issues on three releases except
> > storm-kafka-client things. Please share to this thread if someone found
> > any.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
> > 2017년 8월 28일 (월) 오전 6:03, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > 작성:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > If https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 can't be available
> > > before Storm 1.2.0 then I volunteer to feedback on Storm 1.2.0 Release
> > > Candidate as soon as it'll be available.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Alexandre
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-08-27 22:59 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > > > Yes, releasing 1.2.0 soon would be a better solution I think, ideally
> > we
> > > > could include all the issues I listed above. We should probably get
> > 1.0.5
> > > > and 1.1.2 out first though since 2682 seems pretty crippling from the
> > > > description.
> > > >
> > > > I misremembered earlier, I don't think we've broken the
> > > storm-kafka-client
> > > > API for a while, we've just deprecated a lot of stuff, except for
> > > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2223 which broke an API that
> > > wouldn't
> > > > have been possible to use anyway.
> > > >
> > > > 2017-08-27 1:11 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > IMHO, we still have a chance to respect semver via planning release
> > > 1.2.0
> > > > > sooner.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.2.0 will bring some other side of improvements as well as
> > > > > storm-kafka-client (state backend, and ES connector, and so on),
> so I
> > > > think
> > > > > it's worth to. Storm 1.1.0 was released over 4 months ago, so I
> don't
> > > > feel
> > > > > too hasty to discuss about 1.2.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Non-bug type issues resolved as 1.2.0 are below:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > > > > 3D%20STORM%20and%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%
> > > > > 20and%20resolution%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Fixed%2C%20Done)
> > > > > %20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not%
> > > > > 20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C%201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4%
> > > > > 2C%201.1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2)%20and%20type%20!%3D%20Bug
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing is how much the release phase requires efforts from
> > both
> > > > > release manager and community participating to verify the release,
> > > given
> > > > > that I already proposed two releases. Taylor has been volunteering
> > the
> > > > > heavy load of releasing all the time, so maybe need to hear his
> > opinion
> > > > > about this.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017년 8월 27일 (일) 오전 6:12, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > >님이
> > > > > 작성:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jungtaek,
> > > > > > I agree that we should provide a less buggy storm-kafka-client
> > module
> > > > as
> > > > > > soon as possible. I'm happy to ignore semver for it for a few
> > > versions,
> > > > > > since it still seems pretty common that we have to break the API
> to
> > > > fix a
> > > > > > bug or unintended behavior. If we're putting 2648 into 1.1.2, we
> > > should
> > > > > > also pull back a lot of the fixes targeted for 1.2.0. The list is
> > > > > >
> > > > > > resolved, but only applied to 1.x not 1.1.x
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2640
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2548
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2506
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pending, fix available but needs review, then 1.x backport
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I may have missed some, others can supplement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alexandre,
> > > > > > If we're ignoring semver for storm-kafka-client I don't mind
> > putting
> > > > 2648
> > > > > > in 1.1.2. I just wanted to suggest how you can avoid being
> blocked
> > by
> > > > > 2648
> > > > > > until there's a proper release of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-08-26 15:12 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stig,
> > > > > > > I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as
> stable
> > as
> > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on
> > > storm-kafka-client?
> > > > If
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alexandre,
> > > > > > > STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the type
> > of
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we
> > could
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs
> consensus
> > > > > anyway.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > > > > > 작성:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello Stig,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable
> /
> > > > > > > officialized
> > > > > > > > versions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old
> > Storm
> > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible
> > > with
> > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a
> > > > performance
> > > > > > cost
> > > > > > > > (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and
> > Kafka
> > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its
> > new
> > > > > > > > protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker
> 0.10
> > > > > clusters
> > > > > > > > urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't
> possible
> > > > with
> > > > > > Kafa
> > > > > > > > clients < 0.10
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for
> > > production
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so
> we're
> > > > quite
> > > > > > > > interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix
> for
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hope it clarifies,
> > > > > > > > Alexandre
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I
> > > think.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think
> > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > good to get
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > ,
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675,
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
> > > > > > > > > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe
> that
> > > > > > > storm-kafka
> > > > > > > > > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works
> > for
> > > me
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > on an 0.11 broker.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > > > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > > > > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency
> > etc
> > > > > stats
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not
> > having
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib
> > (limited
> > > to
> > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka
> 0.10.x
> > > > > > > > > compatibility).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Alexandre
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <
> kabhwan@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
> > > Storm
> > > > > > 1.0.4
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update.
> > Personally
> > > it
> > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > > > > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
> > > > quickly
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
> > > include
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > bug
> > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can
> create
> > > > epic
> > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

Sure, I'll take a look at the issues later today.

I don't think 2541 is a blocker for 1.1.2. Manual partition assignment was
only added as an option in 1.1.0
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2236, and becomes the default
option in 1.2.0. In 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 the spout can start and run with the
original Subscription implementation. It's only unable to start if the user
configures the spout to use the new Subscription implementation. I'd be
okay with pulling it back to 1.1.2, since the changed APIs are on the class
that doesn't work.

2017-08-28 5:17 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:

> Looks like there're no issues to add to Storm 1.0.5. No need to have epic
> issue for that, just need to prepare release phase.
>
> While skimming Stig's proposed list, STORM-2541 looks like a 'blocker' for
> 1.1.2 given that its description - Spout is unable to start - and the bug
> affects 1.1.0 and above. (if the spout just unable to start, let's modify
> its priority to at least critical, even blocker)
> Unless we have a workaround to not breaking public API, we have no choice
> to pull the breaking change to 1.1.2.
>
> I couldn't decide for other issues about storm-kafka-client. I just created
> epic issues for 1.1.2 and 1.2.0, and ask a favor of assigning issues to
> either 1.1.2 (they'll go with 1.2.0) or 1.2.0 epic issue. Stig, could you
> help me to do this?
>
> 1.1.2: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2709
> 1.2.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710
>
> For me there seems no other pending issues on three releases except
> storm-kafka-client things. Please share to this thread if someone found
> any.
>
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
> 2017년 8월 28일 (월) 오전 6:03, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> 작성:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > If https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 can't be available
> > before Storm 1.2.0 then I volunteer to feedback on Storm 1.2.0 Release
> > Candidate as soon as it'll be available.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alexandre
> >
> >
> > 2017-08-27 22:59 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Yes, releasing 1.2.0 soon would be a better solution I think, ideally
> we
> > > could include all the issues I listed above. We should probably get
> 1.0.5
> > > and 1.1.2 out first though since 2682 seems pretty crippling from the
> > > description.
> > >
> > > I misremembered earlier, I don't think we've broken the
> > storm-kafka-client
> > > API for a while, we've just deprecated a lot of stuff, except for
> > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2223 which broke an API that
> > wouldn't
> > > have been possible to use anyway.
> > >
> > > 2017-08-27 1:11 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > IMHO, we still have a chance to respect semver via planning release
> > 1.2.0
> > > > sooner.
> > > >
> > > > 1.2.0 will bring some other side of improvements as well as
> > > > storm-kafka-client (state backend, and ES connector, and so on), so I
> > > think
> > > > it's worth to. Storm 1.1.0 was released over 4 months ago, so I don't
> > > feel
> > > > too hasty to discuss about 1.2.0.
> > > >
> > > > Non-bug type issues resolved as 1.2.0 are below:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > > > 3D%20STORM%20and%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%
> > > > 20and%20resolution%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Fixed%2C%20Done)
> > > > %20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not%
> > > > 20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C%201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4%
> > > > 2C%201.1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2)%20and%20type%20!%3D%20Bug
> > > >
> > > > The only thing is how much the release phase requires efforts from
> both
> > > > release manager and community participating to verify the release,
> > given
> > > > that I already proposed two releases. Taylor has been volunteering
> the
> > > > heavy load of releasing all the time, so maybe need to hear his
> opinion
> > > > about this.
> > > >
> > > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >
> > > > 2017년 8월 27일 (일) 오전 6:12, Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > >님이
> > > > 작성:
> > > >
> > > > > Jungtaek,
> > > > > I agree that we should provide a less buggy storm-kafka-client
> module
> > > as
> > > > > soon as possible. I'm happy to ignore semver for it for a few
> > versions,
> > > > > since it still seems pretty common that we have to break the API to
> > > fix a
> > > > > bug or unintended behavior. If we're putting 2648 into 1.1.2, we
> > should
> > > > > also pull back a lot of the fixes targeted for 1.2.0. The list is
> > > > >
> > > > > resolved, but only applied to 1.x not 1.1.x
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2640
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2548
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2506
> > > > >
> > > > > pending, fix available but needs review, then 1.x backport
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > > >
> > > > > I may have missed some, others can supplement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alexandre,
> > > > > If we're ignoring semver for storm-kafka-client I don't mind
> putting
> > > 2648
> > > > > in 1.1.2. I just wanted to suggest how you can avoid being blocked
> by
> > > > 2648
> > > > > until there's a proper release of it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-08-26 15:12 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Stig,
> > > > > > I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as stable
> as
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on
> > storm-kafka-client?
> > > If
> > > > > we
> > > > > > have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alexandre,
> > > > > > STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the type
> of
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we
> could
> > > > make
> > > > > > the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs consensus
> > > > anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > > > > 작성:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Stig,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable /
> > > > > > officialized
> > > > > > > versions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old
> Storm
> > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible
> > with
> > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a
> > > performance
> > > > > cost
> > > > > > > (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and
> Kafka
> > > > Broker
> > > > > > > 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its
> new
> > > > > > > protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker 0.10
> > > > clusters
> > > > > > > urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't possible
> > > with
> > > > > Kafa
> > > > > > > clients < 0.10
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for
> > production
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so we're
> > > quite
> > > > > > > interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix for
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope it clarifies,
> > > > > > > Alexandre
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I
> > think.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > good to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> ,
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675,
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
> > > > > > > > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe that
> > > > > > storm-kafka
> > > > > > > > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works
> for
> > me
> > > > in
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > on an 0.11 broker.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > > > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency
> etc
> > > > stats
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not
> having
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib
> (limited
> > to
> > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x
> > > > > > > > compatibility).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Alexandre
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
> > Storm
> > > > > 1.0.4
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update.
> Personally
> > it
> > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > > > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
> > > quickly
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
> > include
> > > > any
> > > > > > bug
> > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create
> > > epic
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.

Looks like there're no issues to add to Storm 1.0.5. No need to have epic
issue for that, just need to prepare release phase.

While skimming Stig's proposed list, STORM-2541 looks like a 'blocker' for
1.1.2 given that its description - Spout is unable to start - and the bug
affects 1.1.0 and above. (if the spout just unable to start, let's modify
its priority to at least critical, even blocker)
Unless we have a workaround to not breaking public API, we have no choice
to pull the breaking change to 1.1.2.

I couldn't decide for other issues about storm-kafka-client. I just created
epic issues for 1.1.2 and 1.2.0, and ask a favor of assigning issues to
either 1.1.2 (they'll go with 1.2.0) or 1.2.0 epic issue. Stig, could you
help me to do this?

1.1.2: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2709
1.2.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710

For me there seems no other pending issues on three releases except
storm-kafka-client things. Please share to this thread if someone found any.

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

2017년 8월 28일 (월) 오전 6:03, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>님이
작성:

> Hello,
>
> If https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 can't be available
> before Storm 1.2.0 then I volunteer to feedback on Storm 1.2.0 Release
> Candidate as soon as it'll be available.
>
> Best regards,
> Alexandre
>
>
> 2017-08-27 22:59 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Yes, releasing 1.2.0 soon would be a better solution I think, ideally we
> > could include all the issues I listed above. We should probably get 1.0.5
> > and 1.1.2 out first though since 2682 seems pretty crippling from the
> > description.
> >
> > I misremembered earlier, I don't think we've broken the
> storm-kafka-client
> > API for a while, we've just deprecated a lot of stuff, except for
> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2223 which broke an API that
> wouldn't
> > have been possible to use anyway.
> >
> > 2017-08-27 1:11 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > IMHO, we still have a chance to respect semver via planning release
> 1.2.0
> > > sooner.
> > >
> > > 1.2.0 will bring some other side of improvements as well as
> > > storm-kafka-client (state backend, and ES connector, and so on), so I
> > think
> > > it's worth to. Storm 1.1.0 was released over 4 months ago, so I don't
> > feel
> > > too hasty to discuss about 1.2.0.
> > >
> > > Non-bug type issues resolved as 1.2.0 are below:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > > 3D%20STORM%20and%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%
> > > 20and%20resolution%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Fixed%2C%20Done)
> > > %20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not%
> > > 20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C%201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4%
> > > 2C%201.1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2)%20and%20type%20!%3D%20Bug
> > >
> > > The only thing is how much the release phase requires efforts from both
> > > release manager and community participating to verify the release,
> given
> > > that I already proposed two releases. Taylor has been volunteering the
> > > heavy load of releasing all the time, so maybe need to hear his opinion
> > > about this.
> > >
> > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >
> > > 2017년 8월 27일 (일) 오전 6:12, Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >님이
> > > 작성:
> > >
> > > > Jungtaek,
> > > > I agree that we should provide a less buggy storm-kafka-client module
> > as
> > > > soon as possible. I'm happy to ignore semver for it for a few
> versions,
> > > > since it still seems pretty common that we have to break the API to
> > fix a
> > > > bug or unintended behavior. If we're putting 2648 into 1.1.2, we
> should
> > > > also pull back a lot of the fixes targeted for 1.2.0. The list is
> > > >
> > > > resolved, but only applied to 1.x not 1.1.x
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2640
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2548
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2506
> > > >
> > > > pending, fix available but needs review, then 1.x backport
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > > >
> > > > I may have missed some, others can supplement.
> > > >
> > > > Alexandre,
> > > > If we're ignoring semver for storm-kafka-client I don't mind putting
> > 2648
> > > > in 1.1.2. I just wanted to suggest how you can avoid being blocked by
> > > 2648
> > > > until there's a proper release of it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-08-26 15:12 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Stig,
> > > > > I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as stable as
> > > > > possible.
> > > > > Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on
> storm-kafka-client?
> > If
> > > > we
> > > > > have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alexandre,
> > > > > STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the type of
> > > issue
> > > > > is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we could
> > > make
> > > > > the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs consensus
> > > anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > > > 작성:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Stig,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable /
> > > > > officialized
> > > > > > versions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old Storm
> > > Kafka
> > > > > > client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible
> with
> > > > Kafka
> > > > > > 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a
> > performance
> > > > cost
> > > > > > (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and Kafka
> > > Broker
> > > > > > 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its new
> > > > > > protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker 0.10
> > > clusters
> > > > > > urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't possible
> > with
> > > > Kafa
> > > > > > clients < 0.10
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for
> production
> > > > > because
> > > > > > of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so we're
> > quite
> > > > > > interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix for
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope it clarifies,
> > > > > > Alexandre
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I
> think.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think it
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > good to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549,
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675,
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
> > > > > > > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe that
> > > > > storm-kafka
> > > > > > > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works for
> me
> > > in
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > on an 0.11 broker.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency etc
> > > stats
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not having
> > > this
> > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib (limited
> to
> > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x
> > > > > > > compatibility).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Alexandre
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on
> Storm
> > > > 1.0.4
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally
> it
> > > > looks
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
> > quickly
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to
> include
> > > any
> > > > > bug
> > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create
> > epic
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>.

Hello,

If https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 can't be available
before Storm 1.2.0 then I volunteer to feedback on Storm 1.2.0 Release
Candidate as soon as it'll be available.

Best regards,
Alexandre


2017-08-27 22:59 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:

> Yes, releasing 1.2.0 soon would be a better solution I think, ideally we
> could include all the issues I listed above. We should probably get 1.0.5
> and 1.1.2 out first though since 2682 seems pretty crippling from the
> description.
>
> I misremembered earlier, I don't think we've broken the storm-kafka-client
> API for a while, we've just deprecated a lot of stuff, except for
> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2223 which broke an API that wouldn't
> have been possible to use anyway.
>
> 2017-08-27 1:11 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>
> > IMHO, we still have a chance to respect semver via planning release 1.2.0
> > sooner.
> >
> > 1.2.0 will bring some other side of improvements as well as
> > storm-kafka-client (state backend, and ES connector, and so on), so I
> think
> > it's worth to. Storm 1.1.0 was released over 4 months ago, so I don't
> feel
> > too hasty to discuss about 1.2.0.
> >
> > Non-bug type issues resolved as 1.2.0 are below:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> > 3D%20STORM%20and%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%
> > 20and%20resolution%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Fixed%2C%20Done)
> > %20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not%
> > 20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C%201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4%
> > 2C%201.1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2)%20and%20type%20!%3D%20Bug
> >
> > The only thing is how much the release phase requires efforts from both
> > release manager and community participating to verify the release, given
> > that I already proposed two releases. Taylor has been volunteering the
> > heavy load of releasing all the time, so maybe need to hear his opinion
> > about this.
> >
> > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
> > 2017년 8월 27일 (일) 오전 6:12, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>님이
> > 작성:
> >
> > > Jungtaek,
> > > I agree that we should provide a less buggy storm-kafka-client module
> as
> > > soon as possible. I'm happy to ignore semver for it for a few versions,
> > > since it still seems pretty common that we have to break the API to
> fix a
> > > bug or unintended behavior. If we're putting 2648 into 1.1.2, we should
> > > also pull back a lot of the fixes targeted for 1.2.0. The list is
> > >
> > > resolved, but only applied to 1.x not 1.1.x
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2640
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2548
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2506
> > >
> > > pending, fix available but needs review, then 1.x backport
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> > >
> > > I may have missed some, others can supplement.
> > >
> > > Alexandre,
> > > If we're ignoring semver for storm-kafka-client I don't mind putting
> 2648
> > > in 1.1.2. I just wanted to suggest how you can avoid being blocked by
> > 2648
> > > until there's a proper release of it.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-08-26 15:12 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Stig,
> > > > I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as stable as
> > > > possible.
> > > > Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on storm-kafka-client?
> If
> > > we
> > > > have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also.
> > > >
> > > > Alexandre,
> > > > STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the type of
> > issue
> > > > is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we could
> > make
> > > > the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs consensus
> > anyway.
> > > >
> > > > 2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > > 작성:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Stig,
> > > > >
> > > > > For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable /
> > > > officialized
> > > > > versions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old Storm
> > Kafka
> > > > > client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible with
> > > Kafka
> > > > > 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do.
> > > > >
> > > > > But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a
> performance
> > > cost
> > > > > (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and Kafka
> > Broker
> > > > > 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its new
> > > > > protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker 0.10
> > clusters
> > > > > urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't possible
> with
> > > Kafa
> > > > > clients < 0.10
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for production
> > > > because
> > > > > of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so we're
> quite
> > > > > interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix for
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope it clarifies,
> > > > > Alexandre
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think it
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > > good to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549,
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675,
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
> > > > > > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe that
> > > > storm-kafka
> > > > > > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works for me
> > in
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > on an 0.11 broker.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency etc
> > stats
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not having
> > this
> > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib (limited to
> > > Kafka
> > > > > > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x
> > > > > > compatibility).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Alexandre
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> > > 1.0.4
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> > > looks
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases
> quickly
> > > for
> > > > > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> > any
> > > > bug
> > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create
> epic
> > > > issues
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

Yes, releasing 1.2.0 soon would be a better solution I think, ideally we
could include all the issues I listed above. We should probably get 1.0.5
and 1.1.2 out first though since 2682 seems pretty crippling from the
description.

I misremembered earlier, I don't think we've broken the storm-kafka-client
API for a while, we've just deprecated a lot of stuff, except for
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2223 which broke an API that wouldn't
have been possible to use anyway.

2017-08-27 1:11 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:

> IMHO, we still have a chance to respect semver via planning release 1.2.0
> sooner.
>
> 1.2.0 will bring some other side of improvements as well as
> storm-kafka-client (state backend, and ES connector, and so on), so I think
> it's worth to. Storm 1.1.0 was released over 4 months ago, so I don't feel
> too hasty to discuss about 1.2.0.
>
> Non-bug type issues resolved as 1.2.0 are below:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> 3D%20STORM%20and%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%
> 20and%20resolution%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Fixed%2C%20Done)
> %20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not%
> 20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C%201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4%
> 2C%201.1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2)%20and%20type%20!%3D%20Bug
>
> The only thing is how much the release phase requires efforts from both
> release manager and community participating to verify the release, given
> that I already proposed two releases. Taylor has been volunteering the
> heavy load of releasing all the time, so maybe need to hear his opinion
> about this.
>
> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
> 2017년 8월 27일 (일) 오전 6:12, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>님이
> 작성:
>
> > Jungtaek,
> > I agree that we should provide a less buggy storm-kafka-client module as
> > soon as possible. I'm happy to ignore semver for it for a few versions,
> > since it still seems pretty common that we have to break the API to fix a
> > bug or unintended behavior. If we're putting 2648 into 1.1.2, we should
> > also pull back a lot of the fixes targeted for 1.2.0. The list is
> >
> > resolved, but only applied to 1.x not 1.1.x
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2640
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2548
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2506
> >
> > pending, fix available but needs review, then 1.x backport
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
> >
> > I may have missed some, others can supplement.
> >
> > Alexandre,
> > If we're ignoring semver for storm-kafka-client I don't mind putting 2648
> > in 1.1.2. I just wanted to suggest how you can avoid being blocked by
> 2648
> > until there's a proper release of it.
> >
> >
> > 2017-08-26 15:12 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Stig,
> > > I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as stable as
> > > possible.
> > > Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on storm-kafka-client? If
> > we
> > > have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also.
> > >
> > > Alexandre,
> > > STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the type of
> issue
> > > is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we could
> make
> > > the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs consensus
> anyway.
> > >
> > > 2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > 작성:
> > >
> > > > Hello Stig,
> > > >
> > > > For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable /
> > > officialized
> > > > versions.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old Storm
> Kafka
> > > > client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible with
> > Kafka
> > > > 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do.
> > > >
> > > > But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a performance
> > cost
> > > > (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and Kafka
> Broker
> > > > 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its new
> > > > protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker 0.10
> clusters
> > > > urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't possible with
> > Kafa
> > > > clients < 0.10
> > > >
> > > > BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for production
> > > because
> > > > of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so we're quite
> > > > interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix for
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > >
> > > > Hope it clarifies,
> > > > Alexandre
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <
> stigdoessing@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I think.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think it
> would
> > be
> > > > > good to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549,
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675,
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
> > > > > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe that
> > > storm-kafka
> > > > > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works for me
> in
> > > > tests
> > > > > on an 0.11 broker.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency etc
> stats
> > > > when
> > > > > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not having
> this
> > > > > feature
> > > > > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib (limited to
> > Kafka
> > > > > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x
> > > > > compatibility).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Alexandre
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> > 1.0.4
> > > > and
> > > > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> > looks
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
> > for
> > > > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include
> any
> > > bug
> > > > > fix
> > > > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> > > issues
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.

IMHO, we still have a chance to respect semver via planning release 1.2.0
sooner.

1.2.0 will bring some other side of improvements as well as
storm-kafka-client (state backend, and ES connector, and so on), so I think
it's worth to. Storm 1.1.0 was released over 4 months ago, so I don't feel
too hasty to discuss about 1.2.0.

Non-bug type issues resolved as 1.2.0 are below:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20and%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20resolution%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Fixed%2C%20Done)%20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not%20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C%201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4%2C%201.1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2)%20and%20type%20!%3D%20Bug

The only thing is how much the release phase requires efforts from both
release manager and community participating to verify the release, given
that I already proposed two releases. Taylor has been volunteering the
heavy load of releasing all the time, so maybe need to hear his opinion
about this.

- Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

2017년 8월 27일 (일) 오전 6:12, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>님이 작성:

> Jungtaek,
> I agree that we should provide a less buggy storm-kafka-client module as
> soon as possible. I'm happy to ignore semver for it for a few versions,
> since it still seems pretty common that we have to break the API to fix a
> bug or unintended behavior. If we're putting 2648 into 1.1.2, we should
> also pull back a lot of the fixes targeted for 1.2.0. The list is
>
> resolved, but only applied to 1.x not 1.1.x
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2640
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2548
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2506
>
> pending, fix available but needs review, then 1.x backport
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549
>
> I may have missed some, others can supplement.
>
> Alexandre,
> If we're ignoring semver for storm-kafka-client I don't mind putting 2648
> in 1.1.2. I just wanted to suggest how you can avoid being blocked by 2648
> until there's a proper release of it.
>
>
> 2017-08-26 15:12 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Stig,
> > I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as stable as
> > possible.
> > Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on storm-kafka-client? If
> we
> > have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also.
> >
> > Alexandre,
> > STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the type of issue
> > is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we could make
> > the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs consensus anyway.
> >
> > 2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > 작성:
> >
> > > Hello Stig,
> > >
> > > For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable /
> > officialized
> > > versions.
> > >
> > > Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old Storm Kafka
> > > client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible with
> Kafka
> > > 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do.
> > >
> > > But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a performance
> cost
> > > (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and Kafka Broker
> > > 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its new
> > > protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker 0.10 clusters
> > > urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't possible with
> Kafa
> > > clients < 0.10
> > >
> > > BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for production
> > because
> > > of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so we're quite
> > > interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix for
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > >
> > > Hope it clarifies,
> > > Alexandre
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoessing@gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > > > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I think.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think it would
> be
> > > > good to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549,
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675,
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.
> > > >
> > > > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
> > > > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe that
> > storm-kafka
> > > > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works for me in
> > > tests
> > > > on an 0.11 broker.
> > > >
> > > > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency etc stats
> > > when
> > > > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not having this
> > > > feature
> > > > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib (limited to
> Kafka
> > > > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x
> > > > compatibility).
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Alexandre
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm
> 1.0.4
> > > and
> > > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it
> looks
> > > > like
> > > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly
> for
> > > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any
> > bug
> > > > fix
> > > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> > issues
> > > > and
> > > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

Jungtaek,
I agree that we should provide a less buggy storm-kafka-client module as
soon as possible. I'm happy to ignore semver for it for a few versions,
since it still seems pretty common that we have to break the API to fix a
bug or unintended behavior. If we're putting 2648 into 1.1.2, we should
also pull back a lot of the fixes targeted for 1.2.0. The list is

resolved, but only applied to 1.x not 1.1.x
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2640
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2548
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2506

pending, fix available but needs review, then 1.x backport
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549

I may have missed some, others can supplement.

Alexandre,
If we're ignoring semver for storm-kafka-client I don't mind putting 2648
in 1.1.2. I just wanted to suggest how you can avoid being blocked by 2648
until there's a proper release of it.


2017-08-26 15:12 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:

> Stig,
> I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as stable as
> possible.
> Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on storm-kafka-client? If we
> have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also.
>
> Alexandre,
> STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the type of issue
> is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we could make
> the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs consensus anyway.
>
> 2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> 작성:
>
> > Hello Stig,
> >
> > For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable /
> officialized
> > versions.
> >
> > Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old Storm Kafka
> > client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible with Kafka
> > 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do.
> >
> > But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a performance cost
> > (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and Kafka Broker
> > 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its new
> > protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker 0.10 clusters
> > urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't possible with Kafa
> > clients < 0.10
> >
> > BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for production
> because
> > of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so we're quite
> > interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix for
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> >
> > Hope it clarifies,
> > Alexandre
> >
> >
> > 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I think.
> > >
> > > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think it would be
> > > good to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549,
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675,
> > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.
> > >
> > > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
> > > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe that
> storm-kafka
> > > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works for me in
> > tests
> > > on an 0.11 broker.
> > >
> > > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/
> > > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency etc stats
> > when
> > > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not having this
> > > feature
> > > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib (limited to Kafka
> > > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x
> > > compatibility).
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Alexandre
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > >
> > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4
> > and
> > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks
> > > like
> > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
> > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any
> bug
> > > fix
> > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic
> issues
> > > and
> > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.

Stig,
I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as stable as
possible.
Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on storm-kafka-client? If we
have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also.

Alexandre,
STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the type of issue
is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we could make
the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs consensus anyway.

2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>님이
작성:

> Hello Stig,
>
> For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable / officialized
> versions.
>
> Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old Storm Kafka
> client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible with Kafka
> 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do.
>
> But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a performance cost
> (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and Kafka Broker
> 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its new
> protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker 0.10 clusters
> urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't possible with Kafa
> clients < 0.10
>
> BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for production because
> of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so we're quite
> interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
>
> Hope it clarifies,
> Alexandre
>
>
> 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I think.
> >
> > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think it would be
> > good to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549,
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675,
> > https://issues.apache.org/
> > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.
> >
> > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
> > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe that storm-kafka
> > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works for me in
> tests
> > on an 0.11 broker.
> >
> > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/
> > jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency etc stats
> when
> > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not having this
> > feature
> > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib (limited to Kafka
> > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x
> > compatibility).
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Alexandre
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hi devs,
> > > >
> > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4
> and
> > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks
> > like
> > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
> > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any bug
> > fix
> > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic issues
> > and
> > > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>.

Hello Stig,

For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable / officialized
versions.

Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old Storm Kafka
client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible with Kafka
0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do.

But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a performance cost
(because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and Kafka Broker
0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its new
protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker 0.10 clusters
urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't possible with Kafa
clients < 0.10

BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for production because
of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so we're quite
interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648

Hope it clarifies,
Alexandre


2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>:

> Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I think.
>
> Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think it would be
> good to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549,
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675,
> https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.
>
> Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
> storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe that storm-kafka
> only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works for me in tests
> on an 0.11 broker.
>
> 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> avermeerbergen@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/STORM-2648
> > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency etc stats when
> > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not having this
> feature
> > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib (limited to Kafka
> > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x
> compatibility).
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alexandre
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi devs,
> > >
> > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4 and
> > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks
> like
> > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
> > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> > >
> > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any bug
> fix
> > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic issues
> and
> > > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.

Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I think.

Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think it would be
good to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549,
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675, https://issues.apache.org/
jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed.

Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build
storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe that storm-kafka
only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works for me in tests
on an 0.11 broker.

2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen <avermeerbergen@gmail.com
>:

> Hello,
>
> Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
> in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency etc stats when
> using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not having this feature
> is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib (limited to Kafka
> 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x compatibility).
>
> Best regards,
> Alexandre
>
>
>
>
> 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4 and
> > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks like
> > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
> > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
> >
> > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any bug fix
> > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic issues and
> > track them to make releases happening sooner.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.0.5 / 1.1.2

Posted by Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>.

Hello,

Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648
in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency etc stats when
using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not having this feature
is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib (limited to Kafka
0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x compatibility).

Best regards,
Alexandre




2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>:

> Hi devs,
>
> We received a bug report (STORM-2682
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm 1.0.4 and
> 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it looks like
> pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now.
> So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly for
> affected 1.x version lines. What do you think?
>
> Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any bug fix
> issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic issues and
> track them to make releases happening sooner.
>
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>