You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@storm.apache.org by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> on 2014/11/14 23:29:25 UTC
[DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release (skipping the unofficial rc2).
The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be eligible for merging early next week.
Thoughts?
-Taylor
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by Parth Brahmbhatt <pb...@hortonworks.com>.
+1 [Not binding]
I think we have done a lot testing internally so I am comfortable going out with Storm 0.9.3.
Thanks
Parth
On Nov 14, 2014, at 2:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release (skipping the unofficial rc2).
>
> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be eligible for merging early next week.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Taylor
>
>
--
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
STORM-350 has been reverted in the master branch as well.
-Taylor
On Nov 17, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
> +1 on reverting on master too and like to see 0.9.3 out :).
> Thanks,
> Harsha
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014, at 01:55 PM, Bobby Evans wrote:
>> I would love to see 0.9.3 out. - Bobby
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:55 PM, P. Taylor Goetz
>> <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the input Bobby and Nathan. I’ll revert it there as well
>> unless anyone proposes a compelling reason not to.
>>
>> What are your thoughts on moving forward with the 0.9.3 release?
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's
>>> going on.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone decides
>>>> to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at least
>>>> as far as we know, works.
>>>>
>>>> - Bobby
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it
>>>> in master.
>>>>
>>>> For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it
>>>> and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to
>>>> hear what other people think.
>>>>
>>>> In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the
>>>> master and 0.9.3 branches:
>>>>
>>>> * STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in
>>>> supervisor
>>>> * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8
>>>>
>>>> What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release?
>>>>
>>>> -Taylor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small
>>>> not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
>>>>> - Bobby
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
>>>>> this.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Harsha
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>>>> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to
>>>>>> do so please do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree with Nathan.
>>>>>>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of
>>>> STORM-350.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it
>>>> seems
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should
>>>> be
>>>>>>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
>>>>>>>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Harsha
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with
>>>> what is
>>>>>>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
>>>>>>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
>>>>>>>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>>>>>>>> + signature.asc
>>>>>>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>>>>>>>> http://nathanmarz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Name : 임 정택
>>>>>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>>>>>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>>>>>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>>> http://nathanmarz.com
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by Harsha <st...@harsha.io>.
+1 on reverting on master too and like to see 0.9.3 out :).
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014, at 01:55 PM, Bobby Evans wrote:
> I would love to see 0.9.3 out. - Bobby
>
>
> On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:55 PM, P. Taylor Goetz
> <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the input Bobby and Nathan. I’ll revert it there as well
> unless anyone proposes a compelling reason not to.
>
> What are your thoughts on moving forward with the 0.9.3 release?
>
> -Taylor
>
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's
> > going on.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone decides
> >> to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at least
> >> as far as we know, works.
> >>
> >> - Bobby
> >>
> >>
> >> On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
> >> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it
> >> in master.
> >>
> >> For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it
> >> and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to
> >> hear what other people think.
> >>
> >> In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the
> >> master and 0.9.3 branches:
> >>
> >> * STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in
> >> supervisor
> >> * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8
> >>
> >> What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release?
> >>
> >> -Taylor
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small
> >> not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
> >>> - Bobby
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
> >>> this.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Harsha
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >>>> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to
> >>>> do so please do.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Taylor
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agree with Nathan.
> >>>>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of
> >> STORM-350.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it
> >> seems
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should
> >> be
> >>>>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
> >>>>>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Harsha
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with
> >> what is
> >>>>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
> >>>>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
> >>>>>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
> >>>>>>>> + signature.asc
> >>>>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
> >>>>>> http://nathanmarz.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Name : 임 정택
> >>>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
> >>>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
> >>>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Twitter: @nathanmarz
> > http://nathanmarz.com
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
Absolutely. I encourage anyone with the resources available to help test any release candidate.
All official Apache releases go through a VOTE process during which the PMC and community at large are encouraged to evaluate and report any issues they find, or vote +1 if they feel the release is solid. If problems are discovered, the vote can be cancelled.
So far several committers who were able to reproduce the STORM-350 problem have confirmed that reverting that commit solved the issue.
-Taylor
On Nov 17, 2014, at 5:18 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could we have time to re-test failing tuples with current 0.9.3 branch?
> It's better to test it by several developers to verify real issue is
> resolved.
> Maybe it doesn't take long time.
>
> If it passes I'd love to see 0.9.3 now!
> On 2014년 11월 18일 (화) at 오전 7:00 Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> I would love to see 0.9.3 out. - Bobby
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:55 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the input Bobby and Nathan. I’ll revert it there as well
>> unless anyone proposes a compelling reason not to.
>>
>> What are your thoughts on moving forward with the 0.9.3 release?
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's
>>> going on.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com.invalid
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone
>> decides
>>>> to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at
>> least
>>>> as far as we know, works.
>>>>
>>>> - Bobby
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it
>>>> in master.
>>>>
>>>> For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it
>>>> and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would
>> like to
>>>> hear what other people think.
>>>>
>>>> In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to
>> the
>>>> master and 0.9.3 branches:
>>>>
>>>> * STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in
>>>> supervisor
>>>> * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8
>>>>
>>>> What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release?
>>>>
>>>> -Taylor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather
>> small
>>>> not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
>>>>> - Bobby
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
>>>>> this.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Harsha
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>>>> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources
>> to
>>>>>> do so please do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree with Nathan.
>>>>>>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of
>>>> STORM-350.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it
>>>> seems
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should
>>>> be
>>>>>>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
>>>>>>>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Harsha
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with
>>>> what is
>>>>>>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
>>>>>>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should
>> be
>>>>>>>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>>>>>>>> + signature.asc
>>>>>>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>>>>>>>> http://nathanmarz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Name : 임 정택
>>>>>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>>>>>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>>>>>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>>> http://nathanmarz.com
>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>.
Could we have time to re-test failing tuples with current 0.9.3 branch?
It's better to test it by several developers to verify real issue is
resolved.
Maybe it doesn't take long time.
If it passes I'd love to see 0.9.3 now!
On 2014년 11월 18일 (화) at 오전 7:00 Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I would love to see 0.9.3 out. - Bobby
>
>
> On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:55 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the input Bobby and Nathan. I’ll revert it there as well
> unless anyone proposes a compelling reason not to.
>
> What are your thoughts on moving forward with the 0.9.3 release?
>
> -Taylor
>
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's
> > going on.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone
> decides
> >> to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at
> least
> >> as far as we know, works.
> >>
> >> - Bobby
> >>
> >>
> >> On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
> >> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it
> >> in master.
> >>
> >> For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it
> >> and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would
> like to
> >> hear what other people think.
> >>
> >> In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to
> the
> >> master and 0.9.3 branches:
> >>
> >> * STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in
> >> supervisor
> >> * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8
> >>
> >> What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release?
> >>
> >> -Taylor
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather
> small
> >> not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
> >>> - Bobby
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
> >>> this.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Harsha
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >>>> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources
> to
> >>>> do so please do.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Taylor
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agree with Nathan.
> >>>>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of
> >> STORM-350.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it
> >> seems
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should
> >> be
> >>>>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
> >>>>>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Harsha
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with
> >> what is
> >>>>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
> >>>>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should
> be
> >>>>>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
> >>>>>>>> + signature.asc
> >>>>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
> >>>>>> http://nathanmarz.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Name : 임 정택
> >>>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
> >>>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
> >>>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Twitter: @nathanmarz
> > http://nathanmarz.com
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
I would love to see 0.9.3 out. - Bobby
On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:55 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the input Bobby and Nathan. I’ll revert it there as well unless anyone proposes a compelling reason not to.
What are your thoughts on moving forward with the 0.9.3 release?
-Taylor
On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com> wrote:
> I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's
> going on.
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone decides
>> to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at least
>> as far as we know, works.
>>
>> - Bobby
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it
>> in master.
>>
>> For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it
>> and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to
>> hear what other people think.
>>
>> In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the
>> master and 0.9.3 branches:
>>
>> * STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in
>> supervisor
>> * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8
>>
>> What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release?
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small
>> not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
>>> - Bobby
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
>>> this.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Harsha
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to
>>>> do so please do.
>>>>
>>>> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
>>>>
>>>> -Taylor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree with Nathan.
>>>>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of
>> STORM-350.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it
>> seems
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should
>> be
>>>>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
>>>>>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Harsha
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with
>> what is
>>>>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
>>>>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
>>>>>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>>>>>> + signature.asc
>>>>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>>>>>> http://nathanmarz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Name : 임 정택
>>>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>>>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>>>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @nathanmarz
> http://nathanmarz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the input Bobby and Nathan. I’ll revert it there as well unless anyone proposes a compelling reason not to.
What are your thoughts on moving forward with the 0.9.3 release?
-Taylor
On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com> wrote:
> I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's
> going on.
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone decides
>> to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at least
>> as far as we know, works.
>>
>> - Bobby
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it
>> in master.
>>
>> For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it
>> and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to
>> hear what other people think.
>>
>> In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the
>> master and 0.9.3 branches:
>>
>> * STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in
>> supervisor
>> * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8
>>
>> What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release?
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small
>> not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
>>> - Bobby
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
>>> this.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Harsha
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to
>>>> do so please do.
>>>>
>>>> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
>>>>
>>>> -Taylor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree with Nathan.
>>>>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of
>> STORM-350.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it
>> seems
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should
>> be
>>>>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
>>>>>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Harsha
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with
>> what is
>>>>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
>>>>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
>>>>>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>>>>>> + signature.asc
>>>>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>>>>>> http://nathanmarz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Name : 임 정택
>>>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>>>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>>>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @nathanmarz
> http://nathanmarz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>.
I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's
going on.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone decides
> to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at least
> as far as we know, works.
>
> - Bobby
>
>
> On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
> ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it
> in master.
>
> For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it
> and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to
> hear what other people think.
>
> In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the
> master and 0.9.3 branches:
>
> * STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in
> supervisor
> * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8
>
> What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release?
>
> -Taylor
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
> > Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small
> not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
> > - Bobby
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
> > this.
> > Thanks,
> > Harsha
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
> >>
> >> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to
> >> do so please do.
> >>
> >> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
> >>
> >> -Taylor
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Agree with Nathan.
> >>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of
> STORM-350.
> >>>
> >>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it
> seems
> >>>> the
> >>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should
> be
> >>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
> >>>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Harsha
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with
> what is
> >>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
> >>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
> >>>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
> >>>>>> + signature.asc
> >>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
> >>>> http://nathanmarz.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Name : 임 정택
> >>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
> >>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
> >>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
> >
>
>
>
>
--
Twitter: @nathanmarz
http://nathanmarz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone decides to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at least as far as we know, works.
- Bobby
On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it in master.
For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to hear what other people think.
In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the master and 0.9.3 branches:
* STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in supervisor
* STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8
What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release?
-Taylor
On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
> Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
> - Bobby
>
>
> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>
>
> I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
> this.
> Thanks,
> Harsha
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
>>
>> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to
>> do so please do.
>>
>> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree with Nathan.
>>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350.
>>>
>>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
>>>
>>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems
>>>> the
>>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be
>>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
>>>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Harsha
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is
>>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
>>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
>>>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>>>> + signature.asc
>>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>>>> http://nathanmarz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Name : 임 정택
>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it in master.
For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to hear what other people think.
In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the master and 0.9.3 branches:
* STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in supervisor
* STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8
What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release?
-Taylor
On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> wrote:
> Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
> - Bobby
>
>
> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>
>
> I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
> this.
> Thanks,
> Harsha
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
>>
>> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to
>> do so please do.
>>
>> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree with Nathan.
>>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350.
>>>
>>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
>>>
>>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems
>>>> the
>>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be
>>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
>>>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Harsha
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is
>>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
>>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
>>>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>>>> + signature.asc
>>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>>>> http://nathanmarz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Name : 임 정택
>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>.
Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small not totally necessary. +1 for reverting.
- Bobby
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
this.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
>
> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to
> do so please do.
>
> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
>
> -Taylor
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agree with Nathan.
> > Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350.
> >
> > 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
> >
> >> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems
> >> the
> >> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be
> >> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
> >>> +1 on including STORM-555.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Harsha
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is
> >>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
> >>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
> >>>>
> >>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
> >>>> eligible for merging early next week.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Taylor
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Email had 1 attachment:
> >>>> + signature.asc
> >>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Twitter: @nathanmarz
> >> http://nathanmarz.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Name : 임 정택
> > Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
> > Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
> > LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by Harsha <st...@harsha.io>.
I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting
this.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
>
> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to
> do so please do.
>
> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
>
> -Taylor
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agree with Nathan.
> > Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350.
> >
> > 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
> >
> >> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems
> >> the
> >> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be
> >> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
> >>> +1 on including STORM-555.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Harsha
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is
> >>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
> >>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
> >>>>
> >>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
> >>>> eligible for merging early next week.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Taylor
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Email had 1 attachment:
> >>>> + signature.asc
> >>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Twitter: @nathanmarz
> >> http://nathanmarz.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Name : 임 정택
> > Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
> > Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
> > LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue.
I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to do so please do.
I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause.
-Taylor
> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agree with Nathan.
> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350.
>
> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
>
>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems
>> the
>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be
>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
>>> +1 on including STORM-555.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Harsha
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is
>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
>>>>
>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
>>>> eligible for merging early next week.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> -Taylor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>> + signature.asc
>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Twitter: @nathanmarz
>> http://nathanmarz.com
>
>
>
> --
> Name : 임 정택
> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by 임정택 <ka...@gmail.com>.
Agree with Nathan.
Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350.
2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>:
> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems
> the
> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be
> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
>
> > I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
> > +1 on including STORM-555.
> > Thanks,
> > Harsha
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> > > I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is
> > > currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
> > > (skipping the unofficial rc2).
> > >
> > > The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
> > > eligible for merging early next week.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > -Taylor
> > >
> > >
> > > Email had 1 attachment:
> > > + signature.asc
> > > 1k (application/pgp-signature)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @nathanmarz
> http://nathanmarz.com
>
--
Name : 임 정택
Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net
Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior
LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by Nathan Marz <na...@nathanmarz.com>.
-1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems the
upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be
reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote:
> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
> +1 on including STORM-555.
> Thanks,
> Harsha
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> > I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is
> > currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
> > (skipping the unofficial rc2).
> >
> > The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
> > eligible for merging early next week.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -Taylor
> >
> >
> > Email had 1 attachment:
> > + signature.asc
> > 1k (application/pgp-signature)
>
--
Twitter: @nathanmarz
http://nathanmarz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Posted by Harsha <st...@harsha.io>.
I am +1 releasing 0.9.3
+1 on including STORM-555.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is
> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release
> (skipping the unofficial rc2).
>
> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be
> eligible for merging early next week.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Taylor
>
>
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
> 1k (application/pgp-signature)