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

Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org> on 2018/08/03 16:23:15 UTC

[VOTE] Release 1.6.0, release candidate #2

Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 1.6.0,
as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)


The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
* JIRA release notes [1],
* the official Apache source release and binary convenience releases to be
deployed to dist.apache.org [2], which are signed with the key with
fingerprint 1F302569A96CFFD5 [3],
* all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4],
* source code tag "release-1.6.0-rc2" [5],

Please use this document for coordinating testing efforts: [6]

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.

Thanks,
Your friendly Release Manager

[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12342760
[2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.6.0/
[3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS
[4] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1175
[5] https://github.com/apache/flink/tree/release-1.6.0-rc2
[6]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oZ7kYz7RrZ17oBTzzBzq3UNx5FTGmVrCw8EhzY7xUok/edit?usp=sharing

Pro-tip: you can create a settings.xml file with these contents:

<settings>
<activeProfiles>
  <activeProfile>flink-1.6.0</activeProfile>
</activeProfiles>
<profiles>
  <profile>
    <id>flink-1.6.0</id>
    <repositories>
      <repository>
        <id>flink-1.6.0</id>
        <url>

https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1175/
        </url>
      </repository>
      <repository>
        <id>archetype</id>
        <url>

https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1175/
        </url>
      </repository>
    </repositories>
  </profile>
</profiles>
</settings>

And reference that in you maven commands via --settings
path/to/settings.xml. This is useful for creating a quickstart based on the
staged release and for building against the staged jars.

Re: [VOTE] Release 1.6.0, release candidate #2

Posted by Till Rohrmann <ti...@gmail.com>.

I think so far, we did not do much manual testing with respect to TTL.
There is also an end-to-end test covering this area. We actually intended
to include in the second RC but it was merged just after starting the
creation procedure was started. Therefore I would like to include it if
there is no strong objection.

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:40 PM Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org> wrote:

> TBH I would prefer if we'd only include fixes for release blocking
> issues in follow-up RCs.
>
> If you now include state TTL improvemements we effectively invalidate
> any testing done so far in this area.
>
> On 06.08.2018 17:17, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> > Yes, the next RC will also include FLINK-9938.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:03 PM Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Does this mean https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9938 <
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9938> can move to 1.6.0
> from
> >> 1.6.1 as well?
> >>
> >>> On 6. Aug 2018, at 17:00, Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Officially cancelling this RC in order to fix FLINK-10070. I will
> publish
> >>> the next RC later today.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Till
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 3:50 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> I agree with Chesnay and think that we should fix FLINK-10070 for
> 1.6. A
> >>>> PR fixing this issue is already open and can be merged in half an
> hour.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since this change only affects the build, I would like to create a new
> >> RC
> >>>> with a shortened voting period until Wednesday evening (CET) which
> would
> >>>> end at the same time as this RC's voting period.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Till
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:36 PM Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Potential release blocked: Flink cannot be compiled with maven 3.0.X
> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10070
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 06.08.2018 11:21, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure, only bugs will be fixed in 1.6.1.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:34 AM Aljoscha Krettek <
> aljoscha@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think the fixVersion of all unresolved issues should be
> >> updated
> >>>>>> to 1.6.1. If they are not bugs they will not be fixed in 1.6.1
> >> anyways so
> >>>>>> they should be updated to 1.7.0 or we can also remove the fixVersion
> >> from
> >>>>>> them entirely.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 6. Aug 2018, at 10:16, Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>> I think you're right that it is better to change the fixVersion
> >>>>>> otherwise
> >>>>>>> some issue might get wrongly attributed when they are merged in the
> >>>>>> release
> >>>>>>> branch after creating the RC.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I will update the fixVersion of all unresolved issues to 1.6.1.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>> Till
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 9:56 AM Chesnay Schepler <
> chesnay@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Actually, this is defined in the release guide.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Creating+a+Flink+Release#CreatingaFlinkRelease-ReviewReleaseNotesinJIRA
> >>>>>>>> On 06.08.2018 09:11, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not strictly sure whether there must not be any issues with a
> >>>>>>>>> fixVersion of the current RC. At least in the past, we did not do
> >> it
> >>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>> this. Moreover, if a RC is canceled some of these issues might
> >> still
> >>>>>> go
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> the actual release.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> However, I also see the point that the release notes are
> confusing
> >> as
> >>>>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>> as the RC is not released. Once we release, JIRA will bump all
> >>>>>> unresolved
> >>>>>>>>> issues with a fixVersion of the release version to the next minor
> >>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>> version. Then the release notes should reflect the truth.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think this we should clearly define how the community wants to
> >>>>>> handle
> >>>>>>>>> this situation and adhere to it with the next release.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>> Till
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 8:27 AM Chesnay Schepler <
> >> chesnay@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Elias is correct, when a RC is out no more open issuen should
> >> exist
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> has a fixVersion for that version.
> >>>>>>>>>> (An uncommon exception is the first RC which can be released for
> >>>>>> testing
> >>>>>>>>>> purposes.)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 04.08.2018 04:34, vino yang wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Elias,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Usually in order to make the release note clear and brief. It
> >> will
> >>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>>>>> contain issues that have been fixed before the pre-release
> branch
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> cut.
> >>>>>>>>>>> For issues that are scheduled to be processed in this version
> but
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>> processed, they will be postponed to the next minor or major
> >>>>>> version.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, vino.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2018-08-04 7:54 GMT+08:00 Elias Levy <
> >> fearsome.lucidity@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:23 AM Till Rohrmann <
> >>>>>> trohrmann@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> >>>>>>>> includes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> projectId=12315522&version=12342760
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't the release notes only include issues that have been
> >>>>>> closed,
> >>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> simple those that have a Fix Version equal to the release
> >> version?
> >>>>>>>>>> There
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are a lot of issues with an assigned Fix Version that are
> still
> >>>>>> open.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 1.6.0, release candidate #2

Posted by Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org>.

TBH I would prefer if we'd only include fixes for release blocking 
issues in follow-up RCs.

If you now include state TTL improvemements we effectively invalidate 
any testing done so far in this area.

On 06.08.2018 17:17, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> Yes, the next RC will also include FLINK-9938.
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:03 PM Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Does this mean https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9938 <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9938> can move to 1.6.0 from
>> 1.6.1 as well?
>>
>>> On 6. Aug 2018, at 17:00, Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Officially cancelling this RC in order to fix FLINK-10070. I will publish
>>> the next RC later today.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Till
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 3:50 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> I agree with Chesnay and think that we should fix FLINK-10070 for 1.6. A
>>>> PR fixing this issue is already open and can be merged in half an hour.
>>>>
>>>> Since this change only affects the build, I would like to create a new
>> RC
>>>> with a shortened voting period until Wednesday evening (CET) which would
>>>> end at the same time as this RC's voting period.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Till
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:36 PM Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Potential release blocked: Flink cannot be compiled with maven 3.0.X
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10070
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06.08.2018 11:21, Till Rohrmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, only bugs will be fixed in 1.6.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:34 AM Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the fixVersion of all unresolved issues should be
>> updated
>>>>>> to 1.6.1. If they are not bugs they will not be fixed in 1.6.1
>> anyways so
>>>>>> they should be updated to 1.7.0 or we can also remove the fixVersion
>> from
>>>>>> them entirely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6. Aug 2018, at 10:16, Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think you're right that it is better to change the fixVersion
>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>> some issue might get wrongly attributed when they are merged in the
>>>>>> release
>>>>>>> branch after creating the RC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will update the fixVersion of all unresolved issues to 1.6.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Till
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 9:56 AM Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Actually, this is defined in the release guide.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Creating+a+Flink+Release#CreatingaFlinkRelease-ReviewReleaseNotesinJIRA
>>>>>>>> On 06.08.2018 09:11, Till Rohrmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm not strictly sure whether there must not be any issues with a
>>>>>>>>> fixVersion of the current RC. At least in the past, we did not do
>> it
>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> this. Moreover, if a RC is canceled some of these issues might
>> still
>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the actual release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, I also see the point that the release notes are confusing
>> as
>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>> as the RC is not released. Once we release, JIRA will bump all
>>>>>> unresolved
>>>>>>>>> issues with a fixVersion of the release version to the next minor
>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>> version. Then the release notes should reflect the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think this we should clearly define how the community wants to
>>>>>> handle
>>>>>>>>> this situation and adhere to it with the next release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Till
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 8:27 AM Chesnay Schepler <
>> chesnay@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Elias is correct, when a RC is out no more open issuen should
>> exist
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> has a fixVersion for that version.
>>>>>>>>>> (An uncommon exception is the first RC which can be released for
>>>>>> testing
>>>>>>>>>> purposes.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04.08.2018 04:34, vino yang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Elias,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Usually in order to make the release note clear and brief. It
>> will
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> contain issues that have been fixed before the pre-release branch
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> cut.
>>>>>>>>>>> For issues that are scheduled to be processed in this version but
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> processed, they will be postponed to the next minor or major
>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, vino.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-08-04 7:54 GMT+08:00 Elias Levy <
>> fearsome.lucidity@gmail.com
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:23 AM Till Rohrmann <
>>>>>> trohrmann@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>>>>>>> includes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
>>>>>>>>>>>> projectId=12315522&version=12342760
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't the release notes only include issues that have been
>>>>>> closed,
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> simple those that have a Fix Version equal to the release
>> version?
>>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>> are a lot of issues with an assigned Fix Version that are still
>>>>>> open.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release 1.6.0, release candidate #2

Posted by Till Rohrmann <ti...@gmail.com>.

Yes, the next RC will also include FLINK-9938.

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:03 PM Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org> wrote:

> Does this mean https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9938 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9938> can move to 1.6.0 from
> 1.6.1 as well?
>
> > On 6. Aug 2018, at 17:00, Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Officially cancelling this RC in order to fix FLINK-10070. I will publish
> > the next RC later today.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 3:50 PM Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with Chesnay and think that we should fix FLINK-10070 for 1.6. A
> >> PR fixing this issue is already open and can be merged in half an hour.
> >>
> >> Since this change only affects the build, I would like to create a new
> RC
> >> with a shortened voting period until Wednesday evening (CET) which would
> >> end at the same time as this RC's voting period.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Till
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:36 PM Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Potential release blocked: Flink cannot be compiled with maven 3.0.X
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10070
> >>>
> >>> On 06.08.2018 11:21, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sure, only bugs will be fixed in 1.6.1.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:34 AM Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I don't think the fixVersion of all unresolved issues should be
> updated
> >>>> to 1.6.1. If they are not bugs they will not be fixed in 1.6.1
> anyways so
> >>>> they should be updated to 1.7.0 or we can also remove the fixVersion
> from
> >>>> them entirely.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 6. Aug 2018, at 10:16, Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you're right that it is better to change the fixVersion
> >>>> otherwise
> >>>>> some issue might get wrongly attributed when they are merged in the
> >>>> release
> >>>>> branch after creating the RC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will update the fixVersion of all unresolved issues to 1.6.1.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Till
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 9:56 AM Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually, this is defined in the release guide.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Creating+a+Flink+Release#CreatingaFlinkRelease-ReviewReleaseNotesinJIRA
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 06.08.2018 09:11, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> >>>>>>> I'm not strictly sure whether there must not be any issues with a
> >>>>>>> fixVersion of the current RC. At least in the past, we did not do
> it
> >>>> like
> >>>>>>> this. Moreover, if a RC is canceled some of these issues might
> still
> >>>> go
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> the actual release.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, I also see the point that the release notes are confusing
> as
> >>>>>> long
> >>>>>>> as the RC is not released. Once we release, JIRA will bump all
> >>>> unresolved
> >>>>>>> issues with a fixVersion of the release version to the next minor
> >>>> release
> >>>>>>> version. Then the release notes should reflect the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think this we should clearly define how the community wants to
> >>>> handle
> >>>>>>> this situation and adhere to it with the next release.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>> Till
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 8:27 AM Chesnay Schepler <
> chesnay@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Elias is correct, when a RC is out no more open issuen should
> exist
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>>> has a fixVersion for that version.
> >>>>>>>> (An uncommon exception is the first RC which can be released for
> >>>> testing
> >>>>>>>> purposes.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 04.08.2018 04:34, vino yang wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Elias,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Usually in order to make the release note clear and brief. It
> will
> >>>> only
> >>>>>>>>> contain issues that have been fixed before the pre-release branch
> >>>> is
> >>>>>> cut.
> >>>>>>>>> For issues that are scheduled to be processed in this version but
> >>>> not
> >>>>>>>>> processed, they will be postponed to the next minor or major
> >>>> version.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, vino.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2018-08-04 7:54 GMT+08:00 Elias Levy <
> fearsome.lucidity@gmail.com
> >>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 9:23 AM Till Rohrmann <
> >>>> trohrmann@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
> >>>>>> includes:
> >>>>>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1],
> >>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> >>>>>>>>>> projectId=12315522&version=12342760
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't the release notes only include issues that have been
> >>>> closed,
> >>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> simple those that have a Fix Version equal to the release
> version?
> >>>>>>>> There
> >>>>>>>>>> are a lot of issues with an assigned Fix Version that are still
> >>>> open.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>