You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@storm.apache.org by Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> on 2018/09/10 16:25:55 UTC
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out, and this is
not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0 release. I
think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting ready for a 2.0
release, and I really would like to see it happen before another month
passes.
We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters, currently
following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo specific on top. We
would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
There are a few issues that we are aware of.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as critical.
If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed prior to a
2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I would like to
set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to put together
a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are major
blockers that show up I think we can do it.
Thanks,
Bobby Evans
p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until absolutely
necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but if you
do run across one please send something out before merging it in, so we can
set up the branches properly at that time.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues. Thanks to
> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major issue left:
> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for that.
> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is backward
> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated things, so easier
> to be reviewed and make decisions.
>
> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to review and ship
> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some sanity tests
> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time on releasing
> Storm 2.0.0.
>
> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
>
>
> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> 작성:
>
> > +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
> >
> > Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >
> > 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> > > +1 to get it out soon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>+1 Sounds good to me.
> > >>
> > >>-Taylor
> > >>
> > >>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi devs,
> > >>>
> > >>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm 2.0.0 and
> > link
> > >>> to epic issue.
> > >>>
> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
> > >>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
> > >>>
> > >>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing some
> pending
> > >>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
> > >>>
> > >>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for Travis CI
> build,
> > as
> > >>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at least for
> > me), I
> > >>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than later, and
> > rely
> > >>> majorly on 2.x version line.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining tasks for
> > Storm
> > >>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
I’m hitting lots of issues with SNAPSHOT dependencies (as I expected). This is internal to storm’s pom structure and likely the result of all the module reorganization. I’ll probably create a temporary release branch so I can create a pull request for the necessary changes back to master, but continue with the release candidate.
-Taylor
> On Sep 20, 2018, at 3:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I’ll put together a release candidate.
>
> -Taylor
>
>> On Sep 20, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I just merged in the last outstanding JIRA/pull request. I think we are
>> good for a 2.0.0 RC.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:33 PM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds good.
>>>
>>> I just filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3230 and I'll be
>>> putting up a pull request shortly. I would like to see it in before a 2.x
>>> release, but it is kind of minor because ZK has to really be overloaded to
>>> hit this, and we tend to recover after a while.
>>>
>>> I'll look at getting the rest in ASAP.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bobby
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:54 PM P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’m ready to release when everything is ready to go. Since we haven’t
>>>> released from the 2.0-based master branch, I wouldn’t be surprised if I run
>>>> into release issues, but I’ll slog through it.
>>>>
>>>> -Taylor
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Great work everyone. We are really close on this. We have everything
>>>> in
>>>>> except for https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719, but there has
>>>> been no
>>>>> movement there, so I will try and put up an alternative pull request.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also We noticed that a recent merge broke some things fairly badly so we
>>>>> need to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2839 in, but that is
>>>> just
>>>>> a matter of waiting a few more hours for the 24 hours to be up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great work everyone, hopefully we will have an RC up for a vote a little
>>>>> over a day from now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bobby
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Taylor, You have put up all of the release candidates in the past
>>>> and
>>>>> done all of the votes for them. If you want to continue the trend that
>>>> is
>>>>> fine with me, but if not I am happy to do it, but I might have to bug
>>>> you
>>>>> to be sure I do it all correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:13 AM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we are really close on this and I would love to see us get an
>>>> RC
>>>>>> out ASAP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are still missing some things that Stig called out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719 has a build issue, not sure
>>>> if
>>>>>> we need to make an alternative patch or not.
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 has a newer alternative
>>>> patch
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2836 please take a look.
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 has some merge conflicts
>>>>>> currently, but everyone please take a chance to review it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bobby
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:57 AM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have sought the name of client artifact from some of streaming
>>>>>>> frameworks. Please refer below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spark: spark-core
>>>>>>> Kafka: kafka-clients
>>>>>>> Flink: flink-clients
>>>>>>> Heron: heron-api
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on divergence, I don't see the reason "storm-core" is the only
>>>> name
>>>>>>> which avoid confusion. Actually, if my understanding is right, we
>>>> need to
>>>>>>> let end users including "storm-server" when running local cluster,
>>>> then
>>>>>>> "storm-core" vs "storm-server" would give real confusion. I guess we
>>>>>>> already discussed about the naming, and given that we don't rename it
>>>> we
>>>>>>> are OK with renamed artifacts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2018년 9월 14일 (금) 오후 4:07, Roshan Naik <roshan_naik@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>>> 님이
>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon.
>>>>>>>> I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as
>>>> it
>>>>>>>> seems like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy
>>>>>>>> savings.
>>>>>>>> One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is...
>>>> to
>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>> the naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> have been really called storm-core or something like that... but
>>>>>>>> unfortunately we already have another jar with that name. Retaining
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> 'client' name for this new jar would be confusing and give wrong
>>>>>>>> impressions to users and any new devs IMO.
>>>>>>>> -roshan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon
>>>>>>>> <gm...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> I'm working on as part of
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
>>>>>>>>> and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> fixed before a 2.x release
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs
>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>> for them in community soon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I apologize for slowing things up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Govind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 for releasing 2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to cut an RC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
>>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>>> but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
>>>>>>>>>>> also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
>>>>>>>>>> reviewed,
>>>>>>>>>>> it might change some public methods.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code
>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> before release
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the
>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
>>>>>>>>>>>> <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking into all issues reported under epic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
>>>>>>>>>> resolved/closed.
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going
>>>>>>> ahead
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am +1 to 2.0 release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Kishor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>>>>>>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would
>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the ones marked critical are not critical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give
>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
>>>>>>> requests
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do run across one please send something out before merging
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> in,
>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set up the branches properly at that time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <
>>>>>>> bobby@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent
>>>>>>> out,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a
>>>>>>> 2.0.0
>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
>>>>>>>>>> ready
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release, and I really would like to see it happen before
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>> month
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
>>>>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
>>>>>>>>>> specific on
>>>>>>>>>>>> top.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to start pushing towards production with it
>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a few issues that we are aware of.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> critical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If others have any open issues that feel need to be
>>>>>>> addressed
>>>>>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA
>>>>>>> number. I
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from
>>>>>>> today) to
>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blockers that show up I think we can do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bobby Evans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
>>>>>>> requests
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do run across one please send something out before merging
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> in,
>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set up the branches properly at that time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>>>>>>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining
>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>> left:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
>>>>>>>>>> things,
>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be reviewed and make decisions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ship
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> sanity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releasing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 2.0.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>>>>>>> arunm@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to get it out soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <
>>>>>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>>>>>>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding
>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to epic issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left
>>>>>>>> reviewing
>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>> CI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better
>>>>>>>> (at
>>>>>>>>>>>> least for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me), I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>> later,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on
>>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>>>>>> tasks
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
I’ll put together a release candidate.
-Taylor
> On Sep 20, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I just merged in the last outstanding JIRA/pull request. I think we are
> good for a 2.0.0 RC.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bobby
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:33 PM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> I just filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3230 and I'll be
>> putting up a pull request shortly. I would like to see it in before a 2.x
>> release, but it is kind of minor because ZK has to really be overloaded to
>> hit this, and we tend to recover after a while.
>>
>> I'll look at getting the rest in ASAP.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:54 PM P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I’m ready to release when everything is ready to go. Since we haven’t
>>> released from the 2.0-based master branch, I wouldn’t be surprised if I run
>>> into release issues, but I’ll slog through it.
>>>
>>> -Taylor
>>>
>>>> On Sep 18, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Great work everyone. We are really close on this. We have everything
>>> in
>>>> except for https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719, but there has
>>> been no
>>>> movement there, so I will try and put up an alternative pull request.
>>>>
>>>> Also We noticed that a recent merge broke some things fairly badly so we
>>>> need to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2839 in, but that is
>>> just
>>>> a matter of waiting a few more hours for the 24 hours to be up.
>>>>
>>>> Great work everyone, hopefully we will have an RC up for a vote a little
>>>> over a day from now.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Bobby
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Taylor, You have put up all of the release candidates in the past
>>> and
>>>> done all of the votes for them. If you want to continue the trend that
>>> is
>>>> fine with me, but if not I am happy to do it, but I might have to bug
>>> you
>>>> to be sure I do it all correctly.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:13 AM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think we are really close on this and I would love to see us get an
>>> RC
>>>>> out ASAP.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are still missing some things that Stig called out.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719 has a build issue, not sure
>>> if
>>>>> we need to make an alternative patch or not.
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 has a newer alternative
>>> patch
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2836 please take a look.
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 has some merge conflicts
>>>>> currently, but everyone please take a chance to review it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bobby
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:57 AM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have sought the name of client artifact from some of streaming
>>>>>> frameworks. Please refer below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spark: spark-core
>>>>>> Kafka: kafka-clients
>>>>>> Flink: flink-clients
>>>>>> Heron: heron-api
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on divergence, I don't see the reason "storm-core" is the only
>>> name
>>>>>> which avoid confusion. Actually, if my understanding is right, we
>>> need to
>>>>>> let end users including "storm-server" when running local cluster,
>>> then
>>>>>> "storm-core" vs "storm-server" would give real confusion. I guess we
>>>>>> already discussed about the naming, and given that we don't rename it
>>> we
>>>>>> are OK with renamed artifacts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2018년 9월 14일 (금) 오후 4:07, Roshan Naik <roshan_naik@yahoo.com.invalid
>>>> 님이
>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon.
>>>>>>> I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as
>>> it
>>>>>>> seems like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy
>>>>>>> savings.
>>>>>>> One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is...
>>> to
>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>> the naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> have been really called storm-core or something like that... but
>>>>>>> unfortunately we already have another jar with that name. Retaining
>>> the
>>>>>>> 'client' name for this new jar would be confusing and give wrong
>>>>>>> impressions to users and any new devs IMO.
>>>>>>> -roshan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon
>>>>>>> <gm...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> I'm working on as part of
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
>>>>>>>> and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should
>>> be
>>>>>>>> fixed before a 2.x release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs
>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>> for them in community soon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I apologize for slowing things up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Govind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 for releasing 2.0.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 to cut an RC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
>>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>>>> but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
>>>>>>>>>> also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
>>>>>>>>> reviewed,
>>>>>>>>>> it might change some public methods.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code
>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> before release
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the
>>>>>> future
>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>> Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
>>>>>>>>>>> <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking into all issues reported under epic
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
>>>>>>>>> resolved/closed.
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going
>>>>>> ahead
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am +1 to 2.0 release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Kishor
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>>>>>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would
>>>>>> say
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the ones marked critical are not critical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give
>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
>>>>>> requests
>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do run across one please send something out before merging
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> in,
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set up the branches properly at that time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <
>>>>>> bobby@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent
>>>>>> out,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a
>>>>>> 2.0.0
>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
>>>>>>>>> ready
>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release, and I really would like to see it happen before
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>> month
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
>>>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
>>>>>>>>> specific on
>>>>>>>>>>> top.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to start pushing towards production with it
>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a few issues that we are aware of.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> critical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If others have any open issues that feel need to be
>>>>>> addressed
>>>>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA
>>>>>> number. I
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from
>>>>>> today) to
>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blockers that show up I think we can do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bobby Evans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
>>>>>> requests
>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do run across one please send something out before merging
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> in,
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set up the branches properly at that time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>>>>>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining
>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>> left:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
>>>>>>>>> things,
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be reviewed and make decisions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ship
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> sanity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much
>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> releasing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 2.0.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>>>>>> arunm@apache.org
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to get it out soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <
>>>>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>>>>>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding
>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to epic issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left
>>>>>>> reviewing
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>> CI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better
>>>>>>> (at
>>>>>>>>>>> least for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me), I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>> later,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on
>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>>>>> tasks
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org>.
I just merged in the last outstanding JIRA/pull request. I think we are
good for a 2.0.0 RC.
Thanks,
Bobby
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:33 PM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sounds good.
>
> I just filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3230 and I'll be
> putting up a pull request shortly. I would like to see it in before a 2.x
> release, but it is kind of minor because ZK has to really be overloaded to
> hit this, and we tend to recover after a while.
>
> I'll look at getting the rest in ASAP.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bobby
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:54 PM P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I’m ready to release when everything is ready to go. Since we haven’t
>> released from the 2.0-based master branch, I wouldn’t be surprised if I run
>> into release issues, but I’ll slog through it.
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>> > On Sep 18, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Great work everyone. We are really close on this. We have everything
>> in
>> > except for https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719, but there has
>> been no
>> > movement there, so I will try and put up an alternative pull request.
>> >
>> > Also We noticed that a recent merge broke some things fairly badly so we
>> > need to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2839 in, but that is
>> just
>> > a matter of waiting a few more hours for the 24 hours to be up.
>> >
>> > Great work everyone, hopefully we will have an RC up for a vote a little
>> > over a day from now.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Bobby
>> >
>> > P.S. Taylor, You have put up all of the release candidates in the past
>> and
>> > done all of the votes for them. If you want to continue the trend that
>> is
>> > fine with me, but if not I am happy to do it, but I might have to bug
>> you
>> > to be sure I do it all correctly.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:13 AM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think we are really close on this and I would love to see us get an
>> RC
>> >> out ASAP.
>> >>
>> >> We are still missing some things that Stig called out.
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719 has a build issue, not sure
>> if
>> >> we need to make an alternative patch or not.
>> >> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 has a newer alternative
>> patch
>> >> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2836 please take a look.
>> >> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 has some merge conflicts
>> >> currently, but everyone please take a chance to review it.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Bobby
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:57 AM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I have sought the name of client artifact from some of streaming
>> >>> frameworks. Please refer below:
>> >>>
>> >>> Spark: spark-core
>> >>> Kafka: kafka-clients
>> >>> Flink: flink-clients
>> >>> Heron: heron-api
>> >>>
>> >>> Based on divergence, I don't see the reason "storm-core" is the only
>> name
>> >>> which avoid confusion. Actually, if my understanding is right, we
>> need to
>> >>> let end users including "storm-server" when running local cluster,
>> then
>> >>> "storm-core" vs "storm-server" would give real confusion. I guess we
>> >>> already discussed about the naming, and given that we don't rename it
>> we
>> >>> are OK with renamed artifacts.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2018년 9월 14일 (금) 오후 4:07, Roshan Naik <roshan_naik@yahoo.com.invalid
>> >님이
>> >>> 작성:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon.
>> >>>> I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as
>> it
>> >>>> seems like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy
>> >>>> savings.
>> >>>> One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is...
>> to
>> >>> fix
>> >>>> the naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it
>> >>> should
>> >>>> have been really called storm-core or something like that... but
>> >>>> unfortunately we already have another jar with that name. Retaining
>> the
>> >>>> 'client' name for this new jar would be confusing and give wrong
>> >>>> impressions to users and any new devs IMO.
>> >>>> -roshan
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon
>> >>>> <gm...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311
>> >>> which
>> >>>>> I'm working on as part of
>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
>> >>>>> and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should
>> be
>> >>>>> fixed before a 2.x release
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs
>> >>> up
>> >>>>> for them in community soon.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I apologize for slowing things up.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>> Govind.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> +1 for releasing 2.0.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> +1 to cut an RC.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
>> >>>>>> changes,
>> >>>>>>> but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
>> >>>>>>> also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
>> >>>>>> reviewed,
>> >>>>>>> it might change some public methods.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code
>> >>> as we
>> >>>>>> can
>> >>>>>>> before release
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> >>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the
>> >>> future
>> >>>> :)
>> >>>>>>>> Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
>> >>>>>>>> <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Looking into all issues reported under epic
>> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
>> >>>>>> resolved/closed.
>> >>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>>> don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going
>> >>> ahead
>> >>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>> 2.x
>> >>>>>>>>> release.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I am +1 to 2.0 release.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>> -Kishor
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>> >>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would
>> >>> say
>> >>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> majority
>> >>>>>>>>>> of the ones marked critical are not critical.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give
>> >>>> others
>> >>>>>>> time
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>> respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
>> >>> until
>> >>>>>>>> absolutely
>> >>>>>>>>>>> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
>> >>> requests
>> >>>> up
>> >>>>>> but
>> >>>>>>>> if
>> >>>>>>>>>> you
>> >>>>>>>>>>> do run across one please send something out before merging
>> >>> it
>> >>>>>> in,
>> >>>>>>> so
>> >>>>>>>> we
>> >>>>>>>>>> can
>> >>>>>>>>>>> set up the branches properly at that time.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <
>> >>> bobby@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent
>> >>> out,
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>> not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a
>> >>> 2.0.0
>> >>>>>>>> release.
>> >>>>>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>>>>> think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
>> >>>>>> ready
>> >>>>>>>> for a
>> >>>>>>>>>> 2.0
>> >>>>>>>>>>> release, and I really would like to see it happen before
>> >>>> another
>> >>>>>>>> month
>> >>>>>>>>>>> passes.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
>> >>>>>>> currently
>> >>>>>>>>>>> following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
>> >>>>>> specific on
>> >>>>>>>> top.
>> >>>>>>>>>> We
>> >>>>>>>>>>> would like to start pushing towards production with it
>> >>> soon.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are a few issues that we are aware of.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
>> >>>>>>>>>> 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
>> >>>>>>>>>> 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed
>> >>> as
>> >>>>>>>> critical.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> If others have any open issues that feel need to be
>> >>> addressed
>> >>>>>> prior
>> >>>>>>>> to a
>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA
>> >>> number. I
>> >>>>>> would
>> >>>>>>>> like
>> >>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>> set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from
>> >>> today) to
>> >>>>>> put
>> >>>>>>>>>> together
>> >>>>>>>>>>> a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there
>> >>> are
>> >>>>>> major
>> >>>>>>>>>>> blockers that show up I think we can do it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bobby Evans
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
>> >>> until
>> >>>>>>>> absolutely
>> >>>>>>>>>>> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
>> >>> requests
>> >>>> up
>> >>>>>> but
>> >>>>>>>> if
>> >>>>>>>>>> you
>> >>>>>>>>>>> do run across one please send something out before merging
>> >>> it
>> >>>>>> in,
>> >>>>>>> so
>> >>>>>>>> we
>> >>>>>>>>>> can
>> >>>>>>>>>>> set up the branches properly at that time.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>> >>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining
>> >>>> issues.
>> >>>>>>>> Thanks
>> >>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
>> >>>>>> issue
>> >>>>>>>> left:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available
>> >>> for
>> >>>>>>> that.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it
>> >>> is
>> >>>>>>>> backward
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
>> >>>>>> things,
>> >>>>>>> so
>> >>>>>>>>>> easier
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to be reviewed and make decisions.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good
>> >>> to
>> >>>>>> review
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> ship
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do
>> >>> some
>> >>>>>>> sanity
>> >>>>>>>>>> tests
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much
>> >>> time
>> >>>>>> on
>> >>>>>>>>>> releasing
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 2.0.0.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>> >>> arunm@apache.org
>> >>>>> :
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to get it out soon.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <
>> >>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>> >>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding
>> >>>> Storm
>> >>>>>>>> 2.0.0 and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> link
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to epic issue.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left
>> >>>> reviewing
>> >>>>>>> some
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
>> >>>>>> Travis
>> >>>>>>> CI
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> build,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better
>> >>>> (at
>> >>>>>>>> least for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> me), I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner
>> >>>> than
>> >>>>>>>> later,
>> >>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rely
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on
>> >>> remaining
>> >>>>>> tasks
>> >>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org>.
Sounds good.
I just filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3230 and I'll be
putting up a pull request shortly. I would like to see it in before a 2.x
release, but it is kind of minor because ZK has to really be overloaded to
hit this, and we tend to recover after a while.
I'll look at getting the rest in ASAP.
Thanks,
Bobby
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:54 PM P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’m ready to release when everything is ready to go. Since we haven’t
> released from the 2.0-based master branch, I wouldn’t be surprised if I run
> into release issues, but I’ll slog through it.
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Sep 18, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Great work everyone. We are really close on this. We have everything in
> > except for https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719, but there has
> been no
> > movement there, so I will try and put up an alternative pull request.
> >
> > Also We noticed that a recent merge broke some things fairly badly so we
> > need to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2839 in, but that is
> just
> > a matter of waiting a few more hours for the 24 hours to be up.
> >
> > Great work everyone, hopefully we will have an RC up for a vote a little
> > over a day from now.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bobby
> >
> > P.S. Taylor, You have put up all of the release candidates in the past
> and
> > done all of the votes for them. If you want to continue the trend that
> is
> > fine with me, but if not I am happy to do it, but I might have to bug you
> > to be sure I do it all correctly.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:13 AM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I think we are really close on this and I would love to see us get an RC
> >> out ASAP.
> >>
> >> We are still missing some things that Stig called out.
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719 has a build issue, not sure
> if
> >> we need to make an alternative patch or not.
> >> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 has a newer alternative
> patch
> >> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2836 please take a look.
> >> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 has some merge conflicts
> >> currently, but everyone please take a chance to review it.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bobby
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:57 AM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have sought the name of client artifact from some of streaming
> >>> frameworks. Please refer below:
> >>>
> >>> Spark: spark-core
> >>> Kafka: kafka-clients
> >>> Flink: flink-clients
> >>> Heron: heron-api
> >>>
> >>> Based on divergence, I don't see the reason "storm-core" is the only
> name
> >>> which avoid confusion. Actually, if my understanding is right, we need
> to
> >>> let end users including "storm-server" when running local cluster, then
> >>> "storm-core" vs "storm-server" would give real confusion. I guess we
> >>> already discussed about the naming, and given that we don't rename it
> we
> >>> are OK with renamed artifacts.
> >>>
> >>> 2018년 9월 14일 (금) 오후 4:07, Roshan Naik <roshan_naik@yahoo.com.invalid
> >님이
> >>> 작성:
> >>>
> >>>> Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon.
> >>>> I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as it
> >>>> seems like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy
> >>>> savings.
> >>>> One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is... to
> >>> fix
> >>>> the naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it
> >>> should
> >>>> have been really called storm-core or something like that... but
> >>>> unfortunately we already have another jar with that name. Retaining
> the
> >>>> 'client' name for this new jar would be confusing and give wrong
> >>>> impressions to users and any new devs IMO.
> >>>> -roshan
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon
> >>>> <gm...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311
> >>> which
> >>>>> I'm working on as part of
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
> >>>>> and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should
> be
> >>>>> fixed before a 2.x release
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs
> >>> up
> >>>>> for them in community soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I apologize for slowing things up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Govind.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 for releasing 2.0.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> >>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1 to cut an RC.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
> >>>>>> changes,
> >>>>>>> but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
> >>>>>>> also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
> >>>>>> reviewed,
> >>>>>>> it might change some public methods.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code
> >>> as we
> >>>>>> can
> >>>>>>> before release
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the
> >>> future
> >>>> :)
> >>>>>>>> Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
> >>>>>>>> <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Looking into all issues reported under epic
> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
> >>>>>> resolved/closed.
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going
> >>> ahead
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>> 2.x
> >>>>>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I am +1 to 2.0 release.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> -Kishor
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
> >>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would
> >>> say
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>>> majority
> >>>>>>>>>> of the ones marked critical are not critical.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give
> >>>> others
> >>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
> >>> until
> >>>>>>>> absolutely
> >>>>>>>>>>> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
> >>> requests
> >>>> up
> >>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>> do run across one please send something out before merging
> >>> it
> >>>>>> in,
> >>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>> set up the branches properly at that time.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <
> >>> bobby@apache.org>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent
> >>> out,
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>> not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a
> >>> 2.0.0
> >>>>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>> think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
> >>>>>> ready
> >>>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>>>> 2.0
> >>>>>>>>>>> release, and I really would like to see it happen before
> >>>> another
> >>>>>>>> month
> >>>>>>>>>>> passes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
> >>>>>>> currently
> >>>>>>>>>>> following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
> >>>>>> specific on
> >>>>>>>> top.
> >>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>> would like to start pushing towards production with it
> >>> soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There are a few issues that we are aware of.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
> >>>>>>>>>> 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
> >>>>>>>>>> 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed
> >>> as
> >>>>>>>> critical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If others have any open issues that feel need to be
> >>> addressed
> >>>>>> prior
> >>>>>>>> to a
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA
> >>> number. I
> >>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from
> >>> today) to
> >>>>>> put
> >>>>>>>>>> together
> >>>>>>>>>>> a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there
> >>> are
> >>>>>> major
> >>>>>>>>>>> blockers that show up I think we can do it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Bobby Evans
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
> >>> until
> >>>>>>>> absolutely
> >>>>>>>>>>> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
> >>> requests
> >>>> up
> >>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>>> do run across one please send something out before merging
> >>> it
> >>>>>> in,
> >>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>> set up the branches properly at that time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
> >>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining
> >>>> issues.
> >>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
> >>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>> left:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available
> >>> for
> >>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it
> >>> is
> >>>>>>>> backward
> >>>>>>>>>>>> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
> >>>>>> things,
> >>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>> easier
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to be reviewed and make decisions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good
> >>> to
> >>>>>> review
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> ship
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do
> >>> some
> >>>>>>> sanity
> >>>>>>>>>> tests
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much
> >>> time
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>> releasing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 2.0.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
> >>> arunm@apache.org
> >>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to get it out soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <
> >>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
> >>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding
> >>>> Storm
> >>>>>>>> 2.0.0 and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> link
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to epic issue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left
> >>>> reviewing
> >>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pending
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
> >>>>>> Travis
> >>>>>>> CI
> >>>>>>>>>>>> build,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better
> >>>> (at
> >>>>>>>> least for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> me), I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner
> >>>> than
> >>>>>>>> later,
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on
> >>> remaining
> >>>>>> tasks
> >>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
I’m ready to release when everything is ready to go. Since we haven’t released from the 2.0-based master branch, I wouldn’t be surprised if I run into release issues, but I’ll slog through it.
-Taylor
> On Sep 18, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Great work everyone. We are really close on this. We have everything in
> except for https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719, but there has been no
> movement there, so I will try and put up an alternative pull request.
>
> Also We noticed that a recent merge broke some things fairly badly so we
> need to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2839 in, but that is just
> a matter of waiting a few more hours for the 24 hours to be up.
>
> Great work everyone, hopefully we will have an RC up for a vote a little
> over a day from now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bobby
>
> P.S. Taylor, You have put up all of the release candidates in the past and
> done all of the votes for them. If you want to continue the trend that is
> fine with me, but if not I am happy to do it, but I might have to bug you
> to be sure I do it all correctly.
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:13 AM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I think we are really close on this and I would love to see us get an RC
>> out ASAP.
>>
>> We are still missing some things that Stig called out.
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719 has a build issue, not sure if
>> we need to make an alternative patch or not.
>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 has a newer alternative patch
>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2836 please take a look.
>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 has some merge conflicts
>> currently, but everyone please take a chance to review it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:57 AM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have sought the name of client artifact from some of streaming
>>> frameworks. Please refer below:
>>>
>>> Spark: spark-core
>>> Kafka: kafka-clients
>>> Flink: flink-clients
>>> Heron: heron-api
>>>
>>> Based on divergence, I don't see the reason "storm-core" is the only name
>>> which avoid confusion. Actually, if my understanding is right, we need to
>>> let end users including "storm-server" when running local cluster, then
>>> "storm-core" vs "storm-server" would give real confusion. I guess we
>>> already discussed about the naming, and given that we don't rename it we
>>> are OK with renamed artifacts.
>>>
>>> 2018년 9월 14일 (금) 오후 4:07, Roshan Naik <ro...@yahoo.com.invalid>님이
>>> 작성:
>>>
>>>> Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon.
>>>> I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as it
>>>> seems like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy
>>>> savings.
>>>> One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is... to
>>> fix
>>>> the naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it
>>> should
>>>> have been really called storm-core or something like that... but
>>>> unfortunately we already have another jar with that name. Retaining the
>>>> 'client' name for this new jar would be confusing and give wrong
>>>> impressions to users and any new devs IMO.
>>>> -roshan
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon
>>>> <gm...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311
>>> which
>>>>> I'm working on as part of
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
>>>>> and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should be
>>>>> fixed before a 2.x release
>>>>>
>>>>> I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs
>>> up
>>>>> for them in community soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize for slowing things up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Govind.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for releasing 2.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>>>> stigdoessing@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 to cut an RC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>> but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
>>>>>>> also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
>>>>>> reviewed,
>>>>>>> it might change some public methods.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code
>>> as we
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> before release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the
>>> future
>>>> :)
>>>>>>>> Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
>>>>>>>> <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looking into all issues reported under epic
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
>>>>>> resolved/closed.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going
>>> ahead
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> 2.x
>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am +1 to 2.0 release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> -Kishor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would
>>> say
>>>> a
>>>>>>>> majority
>>>>>>>>>> of the ones marked critical are not critical.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give
>>>> others
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
>>> until
>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
>>> requests
>>>> up
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> do run across one please send something out before merging
>>> it
>>>>>> in,
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> set up the branches properly at that time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <
>>> bobby@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent
>>> out,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a
>>> 2.0.0
>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
>>>>>> ready
>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>> 2.0
>>>>>>>>>>> release, and I really would like to see it happen before
>>>> another
>>>>>>>> month
>>>>>>>>>>> passes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>>> following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
>>>>>> specific on
>>>>>>>> top.
>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>> would like to start pushing towards production with it
>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are a few issues that we are aware of.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
>>>>>>>>>> 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
>>>>>>>>>> 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed
>>> as
>>>>>>>> critical.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If others have any open issues that feel need to be
>>> addressed
>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA
>>> number. I
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from
>>> today) to
>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>> a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there
>>> are
>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>> blockers that show up I think we can do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bobby Evans
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
>>> until
>>>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
>>> requests
>>>> up
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> do run across one please send something out before merging
>>> it
>>>>>> in,
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> set up the branches properly at that time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining
>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>> left:
>>>>>>>>>>>> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available
>>> for
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it
>>> is
>>>>>>>> backward
>>>>>>>>>>>> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
>>>>>> things,
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be reviewed and make decisions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good
>>> to
>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> ship
>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do
>>> some
>>>>>>> sanity
>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>>> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much
>>> time
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> releasing
>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm 2.0.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>>>>>>>>>>>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>>> arunm@apache.org
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to get it out soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <
>>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>>>>>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding
>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to epic issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left
>>>> reviewing
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>> CI
>>>>>>>>>>>> build,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better
>>>> (at
>>>>>>>> least for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me), I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner
>>>> than
>>>>>>>> later,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on
>>> remaining
>>>>>> tasks
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org>.
Great work everyone. We are really close on this. We have everything in
except for https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719, but there has been no
movement there, so I will try and put up an alternative pull request.
Also We noticed that a recent merge broke some things fairly badly so we
need to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2839 in, but that is just
a matter of waiting a few more hours for the 24 hours to be up.
Great work everyone, hopefully we will have an RC up for a vote a little
over a day from now.
Thanks,
Bobby
P.S. Taylor, You have put up all of the release candidates in the past and
done all of the votes for them. If you want to continue the trend that is
fine with me, but if not I am happy to do it, but I might have to bug you
to be sure I do it all correctly.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:13 AM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think we are really close on this and I would love to see us get an RC
> out ASAP.
>
> We are still missing some things that Stig called out.
>
> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719 has a build issue, not sure if
> we need to make an alternative patch or not.
> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 has a newer alternative patch
> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2836 please take a look.
> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 has some merge conflicts
> currently, but everyone please take a chance to review it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bobby
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:57 AM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have sought the name of client artifact from some of streaming
>> frameworks. Please refer below:
>>
>> Spark: spark-core
>> Kafka: kafka-clients
>> Flink: flink-clients
>> Heron: heron-api
>>
>> Based on divergence, I don't see the reason "storm-core" is the only name
>> which avoid confusion. Actually, if my understanding is right, we need to
>> let end users including "storm-server" when running local cluster, then
>> "storm-core" vs "storm-server" would give real confusion. I guess we
>> already discussed about the naming, and given that we don't rename it we
>> are OK with renamed artifacts.
>>
>> 2018년 9월 14일 (금) 오후 4:07, Roshan Naik <ro...@yahoo.com.invalid>님이
>> 작성:
>>
>> > Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon.
>> > I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as it
>> > seems like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy
>> > savings.
>> > One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is... to
>> fix
>> > the naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it
>> should
>> > have been really called storm-core or something like that... but
>> > unfortunately we already have another jar with that name. Retaining the
>> > 'client' name for this new jar would be confusing and give wrong
>> > impressions to users and any new devs IMO.
>> > -roshan
>> >
>> > On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon
>> > <gm...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
>> >
>> > STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311
>> which
>> > > I'm working on as part of
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
>> > > and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should be
>> > > fixed before a 2.x release
>> > >
>> > > I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs
>> up
>> > > for them in community soon.
>> > >
>> > > I apologize for slowing things up.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Govind.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> +1 for releasing 2.0.
>> > >>
>> > >> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <
>> > stigdoessing@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > +1 to cut an RC.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
>> > >> >
>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
>> > >> changes,
>> > >> > but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
>> > >> > also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
>> > >> reviewed,
>> > >> > it might change some public methods.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code
>> as we
>> > >> can
>> > >> > before release
>> > >> >
>> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > >> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the
>> future
>> > :)
>> > >> > > Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
>> > >> > > <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Looking into all issues reported under epic
>> > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
>> > >> resolved/closed.
>> > >> > I
>> > >> > > > don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going
>> ahead
>> > >> with
>> > >> > 2.x
>> > >> > > > release.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I am +1 to 2.0 release.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Regards,
>> > >> > > > -Kishor
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
>> > ptgoetz@gmail.com
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would
>> say
>> > a
>> > >> > > majority
>> > >> > > > > of the ones marked critical are not critical.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give
>> > others
>> > >> > time
>> > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
>> until
>> > >> > > absolutely
>> > >> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
>> requests
>> > up
>> > >> but
>> > >> > > if
>> > >> > > > > you
>> > >> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging
>> it
>> > >> in,
>> > >> > so
>> > >> > > we
>> > >> > > > > can
>> > >> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > -Taylor
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <
>> bobby@apache.org>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent
>> out,
>> > >> and
>> > >> > > this
>> > >> > > > > is
>> > >> > > > > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a
>> 2.0.0
>> > >> > > release.
>> > >> > > > > I
>> > >> > > > > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
>> > >> ready
>> > >> > > for a
>> > >> > > > > 2.0
>> > >> > > > > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before
>> > another
>> > >> > > month
>> > >> > > > > > passes.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
>> > >> > currently
>> > >> > > > > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
>> > >> specific on
>> > >> > > top.
>> > >> > > > > We
>> > >> > > > > > would like to start pushing towards production with it
>> soon.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
>> > >> > > > > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
>> > >> > > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed
>> as
>> > >> > > critical.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be
>> addressed
>> > >> prior
>> > >> > > to a
>> > >> > > > > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA
>> number. I
>> > >> would
>> > >> > > like
>> > >> > > > > to
>> > >> > > > > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from
>> today) to
>> > >> put
>> > >> > > > > together
>> > >> > > > > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there
>> are
>> > >> major
>> > >> > > > > > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Thanks,
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Bobby Evans
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x
>> until
>> > >> > > absolutely
>> > >> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull
>> requests
>> > up
>> > >> but
>> > >> > > if
>> > >> > > > > you
>> > >> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging
>> it
>> > >> in,
>> > >> > so
>> > >> > > we
>> > >> > > > > can
>> > >> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>> > >> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining
>> > issues.
>> > >> > > Thanks
>> > >> > > > > to
>> > >> > > > > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
>> > >> issue
>> > >> > > left:
>> > >> > > > > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available
>> for
>> > >> > that.
>> > >> > > > > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it
>> is
>> > >> > > backward
>> > >> > > > > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
>> > >> things,
>> > >> > so
>> > >> > > > > easier
>> > >> > > > > >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good
>> to
>> > >> review
>> > >> > > and
>> > >> > > > > ship
>> > >> > > > > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do
>> some
>> > >> > sanity
>> > >> > > > > tests
>> > >> > > > > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much
>> time
>> > >> on
>> > >> > > > > releasing
>> > >> > > > > >> Storm 2.0.0.
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
>> > >> > > > > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
>> > >> > > > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> > >> > > > > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > >> > > > > >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>> > >> > > > > >> 작성:
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
>> > >> > > > > >>>
>> > >> > > > > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>> > >> > > > > >>>
>> > >> > > > > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
>> arunm@apache.org
>> > >:
>> > >> > > > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
>> > >> > > > > >>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <
>> ptgoetz@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>> -Taylor
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>> > >> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> Hi devs,
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding
>> > Storm
>> > >> > > 2.0.0 and
>> > >> > > > > >>> link
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> to epic issue.
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left
>> > reviewing
>> > >> > some
>> > >> > > > > >> pending
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
>> > >> Travis
>> > >> > CI
>> > >> > > > > >> build,
>> > >> > > > > >>> as
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better
>> > (at
>> > >> > > least for
>> > >> > > > > >>> me), I
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner
>> > than
>> > >> > > later,
>> > >> > > > > and
>> > >> > > > > >>> rely
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on
>> remaining
>> > >> tasks
>> > >> > > for
>> > >> > > > > >>> Storm
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > >> > > > > >>>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>>
>> > >> > > > > >>>
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>>
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org>.
I think we are really close on this and I would love to see us get an RC
out ASAP.
We are still missing some things that Stig called out.
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719 has a build issue, not sure if we
need to make an alternative patch or not.
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 has a newer alternative patch
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2836 please take a look.
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 has some merge conflicts
currently, but everyone please take a chance to review it.
Thanks,
Bobby
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:57 AM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have sought the name of client artifact from some of streaming
> frameworks. Please refer below:
>
> Spark: spark-core
> Kafka: kafka-clients
> Flink: flink-clients
> Heron: heron-api
>
> Based on divergence, I don't see the reason "storm-core" is the only name
> which avoid confusion. Actually, if my understanding is right, we need to
> let end users including "storm-server" when running local cluster, then
> "storm-core" vs "storm-server" would give real confusion. I guess we
> already discussed about the naming, and given that we don't rename it we
> are OK with renamed artifacts.
>
> 2018년 9월 14일 (금) 오후 4:07, Roshan Naik <ro...@yahoo.com.invalid>님이
> 작성:
>
> > Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon.
> > I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as it
> > seems like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy
> > savings.
> > One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is... to
> fix
> > the naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it
> should
> > have been really called storm-core or something like that... but
> > unfortunately we already have another jar with that name. Retaining the
> > 'client' name for this new jar would be confusing and give wrong
> > impressions to users and any new devs IMO.
> > -roshan
> >
> > On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon
> > <gm...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311
> which
> > > I'm working on as part of
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
> > > and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should be
> > > fixed before a 2.x release
> > >
> > > I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs up
> > > for them in community soon.
> > >
> > > I apologize for slowing things up.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Govind.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 for releasing 2.0.
> > >>
> > >> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> > stigdoessing@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > +1 to cut an RC.
> > >> >
> > >> > Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
> > >> >
> > >> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
> > >> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
> > >> changes,
> > >> > but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
> > >> > also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
> > >> reviewed,
> > >> > it might change some public methods.
> > >> >
> > >> > Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code as
> we
> > >> can
> > >> > before release
> > >> >
> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> > >> >
> > >> > Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > >> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
> > >> >
> > >> > > +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the
> future
> > :)
> > >> > > Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
> > >> > > <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Looking into all issues reported under epic
> > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
> > >> resolved/closed.
> > >> > I
> > >> > > > don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead
> > >> with
> > >> > 2.x
> > >> > > > release.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I am +1 to 2.0 release.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Regards,
> > >> > > > -Kishor
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
> > ptgoetz@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would
> say
> > a
> > >> > > majority
> > >> > > > > of the ones marked critical are not critical.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give
> > others
> > >> > time
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
> > >> > > absolutely
> > >> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests
> > up
> > >> but
> > >> > > if
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging
> it
> > >> in,
> > >> > so
> > >> > > we
> > >> > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > -Taylor
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <bobby@apache.org
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent
> out,
> > >> and
> > >> > > this
> > >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a
> 2.0.0
> > >> > > release.
> > >> > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
> > >> ready
> > >> > > for a
> > >> > > > > 2.0
> > >> > > > > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before
> > another
> > >> > > month
> > >> > > > > > passes.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
> > >> > currently
> > >> > > > > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
> > >> specific on
> > >> > > top.
> > >> > > > > We
> > >> > > > > > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >
> > >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
> > >> > > > > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
> > >> > > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed
> as
> > >> > > critical.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be
> addressed
> > >> prior
> > >> > > to a
> > >> > > > > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number.
> I
> > >> would
> > >> > > like
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today)
> to
> > >> put
> > >> > > > > together
> > >> > > > > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there
> are
> > >> major
> > >> > > > > > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Bobby Evans
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
> > >> > > absolutely
> > >> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests
> > up
> > >> but
> > >> > > if
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging
> it
> > >> in,
> > >> > so
> > >> > > we
> > >> > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
> > >> kabhwan@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining
> > issues.
> > >> > > Thanks
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
> > >> issue
> > >> > > left:
> > >> > > > > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available
> for
> > >> > that.
> > >> > > > > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it
> is
> > >> > > backward
> > >> > > > > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
> > >> things,
> > >> > so
> > >> > > > > easier
> > >> > > > > >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to
> > >> review
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > ship
> > >> > > > > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do
> some
> > >> > sanity
> > >> > > > > tests
> > >> > > > > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much
> time
> > >> on
> > >> > > > > releasing
> > >> > > > > >> Storm 2.0.0.
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
> > >> > > > > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
> > >> > > > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> > >> > > > > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > >> > > > > >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > >> > > > > >> 작성:
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <
> arunm@apache.org
> > >:
> > >> > > > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <
> ptgoetz@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>> -Taylor
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
> > >> kabhwan@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> Hi devs,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding
> > Storm
> > >> > > 2.0.0 and
> > >> > > > > >>> link
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> to epic issue.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left
> > reviewing
> > >> > some
> > >> > > > > >> pending
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
> > >> Travis
> > >> > CI
> > >> > > > > >> build,
> > >> > > > > >>> as
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better
> > (at
> > >> > > least for
> > >> > > > > >>> me), I
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner
> > than
> > >> > > later,
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > >>> rely
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on
> remaining
> > >> tasks
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > > > >>> Storm
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
> > >> > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >> > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>.
I have sought the name of client artifact from some of streaming
frameworks. Please refer below:
Spark: spark-core
Kafka: kafka-clients
Flink: flink-clients
Heron: heron-api
Based on divergence, I don't see the reason "storm-core" is the only name
which avoid confusion. Actually, if my understanding is right, we need to
let end users including "storm-server" when running local cluster, then
"storm-core" vs "storm-server" would give real confusion. I guess we
already discussed about the naming, and given that we don't rename it we
are OK with renamed artifacts.
2018년 9월 14일 (금) 오후 4:07, Roshan Naik <ro...@yahoo.com.invalid>님이 작성:
> Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon.
> I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as it
> seems like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy
> savings.
> One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is... to fix
> the naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it should
> have been really called storm-core or something like that... but
> unfortunately we already have another jar with that name. Retaining the
> 'client' name for this new jar would be confusing and give wrong
> impressions to users and any new devs IMO.
> -roshan
>
> On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon
> <gm...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311 which
> > I'm working on as part of
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
> > and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should be
> > fixed before a 2.x release
> >
> > I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs up
> > for them in community soon.
> >
> > I apologize for slowing things up.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Govind.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for releasing 2.0.
> >>
> >> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
> >>
> >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <
> stigdoessing@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1 to cut an RC.
> >> >
> >> > Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
> >> >
> >> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
> >> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
> >> changes,
> >> > but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
> >> > also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
> >> reviewed,
> >> > it might change some public methods.
> >> >
> >> > Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code as we
> >> can
> >> > before release
> >> >
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> >> >
> >> > Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> > > +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the future
> :)
> >> > > Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
> >> > > <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Looking into all issues reported under epic
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
> >> resolved/closed.
> >> > I
> >> > > > don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead
> >> with
> >> > 2.x
> >> > > > release.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I am +1 to 2.0 release.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards,
> >> > > > -Kishor
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <
> ptgoetz@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say
> a
> >> > > majority
> >> > > > > of the ones marked critical are not critical.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give
> others
> >> > time
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
> >> > > absolutely
> >> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests
> up
> >> but
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it
> >> in,
> >> > so
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -Taylor
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out,
> >> and
> >> > > this
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0
> >> > > release.
> >> > > > > I
> >> > > > > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
> >> ready
> >> > > for a
> >> > > > > 2.0
> >> > > > > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before
> another
> >> > > month
> >> > > > > > passes.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
> >> > currently
> >> > > > > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
> >> specific on
> >> > > top.
> >> > > > > We
> >> > > > > > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
> >> > > > > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
> >> > > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as
> >> > > critical.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed
> >> prior
> >> > > to a
> >> > > > > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I
> >> would
> >> > > like
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to
> >> put
> >> > > > > together
> >> > > > > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are
> >> major
> >> > > > > > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Bobby Evans
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
> >> > > absolutely
> >> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests
> up
> >> but
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it
> >> in,
> >> > so
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
> >> kabhwan@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining
> issues.
> >> > > Thanks
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
> >> issue
> >> > > left:
> >> > > > > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for
> >> > that.
> >> > > > > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is
> >> > > backward
> >> > > > > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
> >> things,
> >> > so
> >> > > > > easier
> >> > > > > >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to
> >> review
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > ship
> >> > > > > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some
> >> > sanity
> >> > > > > tests
> >> > > > > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time
> >> on
> >> > > > > releasing
> >> > > > > >> Storm 2.0.0.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
> >> > > > > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
> >> > > > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> >> > > > > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >> > > > > >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> >> > > > > >> 작성:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <arunm@apache.org
> >:
> >> > > > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgoetz@gmail.com
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> -Taylor
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
> >> kabhwan@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Hi devs,
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding
> Storm
> >> > > 2.0.0 and
> >> > > > > >>> link
> >> > > > > >>>>>> to epic issue.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
> >> > > > > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left
> reviewing
> >> > some
> >> > > > > >> pending
> >> > > > > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
> >> Travis
> >> > CI
> >> > > > > >> build,
> >> > > > > >>> as
> >> > > > > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better
> (at
> >> > > least for
> >> > > > > >>> me), I
> >> > > > > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner
> than
> >> > > later,
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > >>> rely
> >> > > > > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining
> >> tasks
> >> > > for
> >> > > > > >>> Storm
> >> > > > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Roshan Naik <ro...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon.
I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as it seems like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy savings.
One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is... to fix the naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it should have been really called storm-core or something like that... but unfortunately we already have another jar with that name. Retaining the 'client' name for this new jar would be confusing and give wrong impressions to users and any new devs IMO.
-roshan
On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com.INVALID> wrote:
STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311 which
> I'm working on as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
> and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should be
> fixed before a 2.x release
>
> I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs up
> for them in community soon.
>
> I apologize for slowing things up.
>
> Thanks,
> Govind.
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 for releasing 2.0.
>>
>> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 to cut an RC.
>> >
>> > Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
>> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
>> changes,
>> > but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
>> > also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
>> reviewed,
>> > it might change some public methods.
>> >
>> > Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code as we
>> can
>> > before release
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> >
>> > Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > > +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the future :)
>> > > Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
>> > > <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
>> > > >
>> > > > Looking into all issues reported under epic
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
>> resolved/closed.
>> > I
>> > > > don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead
>> with
>> > 2.x
>> > > > release.
>> > > >
>> > > > I am +1 to 2.0 release.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > -Kishor
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say a
>> > > majority
>> > > > > of the ones marked critical are not critical.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give others
>> > time
>> > > to
>> > > > > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
>> > > absolutely
>> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up
>> but
>> > > if
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it
>> in,
>> > so
>> > > we
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Taylor
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out,
>> and
>> > > this
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0
>> > > release.
>> > > > > I
>> > > > > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
>> ready
>> > > for a
>> > > > > 2.0
>> > > > > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before another
>> > > month
>> > > > > > passes.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
>> > currently
>> > > > > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
>> specific on
>> > > top.
>> > > > > We
>> > > > > > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
>> > > > > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
>> > > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as
>> > > critical.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed
>> prior
>> > > to a
>> > > > > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I
>> would
>> > > like
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to
>> put
>> > > > > together
>> > > > > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are
>> major
>> > > > > > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Bobby Evans
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
>> > > absolutely
>> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up
>> but
>> > > if
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it
>> in,
>> > so
>> > > we
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues.
>> > > Thanks
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
>> issue
>> > > left:
>> > > > > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for
>> > that.
>> > > > > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is
>> > > backward
>> > > > > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
>> things,
>> > so
>> > > > > easier
>> > > > > >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to
>> review
>> > > and
>> > > > > ship
>> > > > > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some
>> > sanity
>> > > > > tests
>> > > > > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time
>> on
>> > > > > releasing
>> > > > > >> Storm 2.0.0.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
>> > > > > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
>> > > > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> > > > > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > > > > >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>> > > > > >> 작성:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
>> > > > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> -Taylor
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Hi devs,
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm
>> > > 2.0.0 and
>> > > > > >>> link
>> > > > > >>>>>> to epic issue.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
>> > > > > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing
>> > some
>> > > > > >> pending
>> > > > > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
>> Travis
>> > CI
>> > > > > >> build,
>> > > > > >>> as
>> > > > > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at
>> > > least for
>> > > > > >>> me), I
>> > > > > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than
>> > > later,
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > >>> rely
>> > > > > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining
>> tasks
>> > > for
>> > > > > >>> Storm
>> > > > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com.INVALID>.
STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311 which
> I'm working on as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
> and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should be
> fixed before a 2.x release
>
> I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs up
> for them in community soon.
>
> I apologize for slowing things up.
>
> Thanks,
> Govind.
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 for releasing 2.0.
>>
>> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 to cut an RC.
>> >
>> > Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
>> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
>> changes,
>> > but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
>> > also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
>> reviewed,
>> > it might change some public methods.
>> >
>> > Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code as we
>> can
>> > before release
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> >
>> > Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > > +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the future :)
>> > > Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
>> > > <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
>> > > >
>> > > > Looking into all issues reported under epic
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
>> resolved/closed.
>> > I
>> > > > don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead
>> with
>> > 2.x
>> > > > release.
>> > > >
>> > > > I am +1 to 2.0 release.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > -Kishor
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say a
>> > > majority
>> > > > > of the ones marked critical are not critical.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give others
>> > time
>> > > to
>> > > > > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
>> > > absolutely
>> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up
>> but
>> > > if
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it
>> in,
>> > so
>> > > we
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Taylor
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out,
>> and
>> > > this
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0
>> > > release.
>> > > > > I
>> > > > > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
>> ready
>> > > for a
>> > > > > 2.0
>> > > > > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before another
>> > > month
>> > > > > > passes.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
>> > currently
>> > > > > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
>> specific on
>> > > top.
>> > > > > We
>> > > > > > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
>> > > > > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
>> > > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as
>> > > critical.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed
>> prior
>> > > to a
>> > > > > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I
>> would
>> > > like
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to
>> put
>> > > > > together
>> > > > > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are
>> major
>> > > > > > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Bobby Evans
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
>> > > absolutely
>> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up
>> but
>> > > if
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it
>> in,
>> > so
>> > > we
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues.
>> > > Thanks
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
>> issue
>> > > left:
>> > > > > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for
>> > that.
>> > > > > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is
>> > > backward
>> > > > > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
>> things,
>> > so
>> > > > > easier
>> > > > > >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to
>> review
>> > > and
>> > > > > ship
>> > > > > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some
>> > sanity
>> > > > > tests
>> > > > > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time
>> on
>> > > > > releasing
>> > > > > >> Storm 2.0.0.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
>> > > > > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
>> > > > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> > > > > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > > > > >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>> > > > > >> 작성:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
>> > > > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> -Taylor
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>> kabhwan@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Hi devs,
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm
>> > > 2.0.0 and
>> > > > > >>> link
>> > > > > >>>>>> to epic issue.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
>> > > > > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing
>> > some
>> > > > > >> pending
>> > > > > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
>> Travis
>> > CI
>> > > > > >> build,
>> > > > > >>> as
>> > > > > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at
>> > > least for
>> > > > > >>> me), I
>> > > > > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than
>> > > later,
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > >>> rely
>> > > > > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining
>> tasks
>> > > for
>> > > > > >>> Storm
>> > > > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Govind Menon <gm...@oath.com.INVALID>.
Hi all,
There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311 which
I'm working on as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should be fixed
before a 2.x release
I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs up for
them in community soon.
I apologize for slowing things up.
Thanks,
Govind.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for releasing 2.0.
>
> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
>
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to cut an RC.
> >
> > Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
> changes,
> > but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
> > also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
> reviewed,
> > it might change some public methods.
> >
> > Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code as we
> can
> > before release
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> >
> > Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the future :)
> > > Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
> > > <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Looking into all issues reported under epic
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
> resolved/closed.
> > I
> > > > don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead with
> > 2.x
> > > > release.
> > > >
> > > > I am +1 to 2.0 release.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > -Kishor
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say a
> > > majority
> > > > > of the ones marked critical are not critical.
> > > > >
> > > > > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give others
> > time
> > > to
> > > > > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
> > > > >
> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up
> but
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it in,
> > so
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Taylor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out,
> and
> > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0
> > > release.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting ready
> > > for a
> > > > > 2.0
> > > > > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before another
> > > month
> > > > > > passes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
> > currently
> > > > > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo specific
> on
> > > top.
> > > > > We
> > > > > > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
> > > > > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
> > > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as
> > > critical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed
> prior
> > > to a
> > > > > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I
> would
> > > like
> > > > > to
> > > > > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to
> put
> > > > > together
> > > > > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are
> major
> > > > > > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bobby Evans
> > > > > >
> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up
> but
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it in,
> > so
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues.
> > > Thanks
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major issue
> > > left:
> > > > > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for
> > that.
> > > > > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is
> > > backward
> > > > > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated things,
> > so
> > > > > easier
> > > > > >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to
> review
> > > and
> > > > > ship
> > > > > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some
> > sanity
> > > > > tests
> > > > > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time on
> > > > > releasing
> > > > > >> Storm 2.0.0.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
> > > > > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
> > > > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> > > > > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > > >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > > > >> 작성:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> -Taylor
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
> kabhwan@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi devs,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm
> > > 2.0.0 and
> > > > > >>> link
> > > > > >>>>>> to epic issue.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
> > > > > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing
> > some
> > > > > >> pending
> > > > > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for Travis
> > CI
> > > > > >> build,
> > > > > >>> as
> > > > > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at
> > > least for
> > > > > >>> me), I
> > > > > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than
> > > later,
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>> rely
> > > > > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining
> tasks
> > > for
> > > > > >>> Storm
> > > > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>.
+1 for releasing 2.0.
May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 to cut an RC.
>
> Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
>
> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some changes,
> but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
> also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 reviewed,
> it might change some public methods.
>
> Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code as we can
> before release
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>
> Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
>
> > +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the future :)
> > Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
> > <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
> > >
> > > Looking into all issues reported under epic
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are resolved/closed.
> I
> > > don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead with
> 2.x
> > > release.
> > >
> > > I am +1 to 2.0 release.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > -Kishor
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say a
> > majority
> > > > of the ones marked critical are not critical.
> > > >
> > > > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give others
> time
> > to
> > > > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
> > > >
> > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
> > absolutely
> > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it in,
> so
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
> > > >
> > > > -Taylor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out, and
> > this
> > > > is
> > > > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0
> > release.
> > > > I
> > > > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting ready
> > for a
> > > > 2.0
> > > > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before another
> > month
> > > > > passes.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
> currently
> > > > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo specific on
> > top.
> > > > We
> > > > > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
> > > > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
> > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as
> > critical.
> > > > >
> > > > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed prior
> > to a
> > > > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I would
> > like
> > > > to
> > > > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to put
> > > > together
> > > > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are major
> > > > > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Bobby Evans
> > > > >
> > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
> > absolutely
> > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it in,
> so
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues.
> > Thanks
> > > > to
> > > > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major issue
> > left:
> > > > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for
> that.
> > > > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is
> > backward
> > > > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated things,
> so
> > > > easier
> > > > >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to review
> > and
> > > > ship
> > > > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some
> sanity
> > > > tests
> > > > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time on
> > > > releasing
> > > > >> Storm 2.0.0.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
> > > > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
> > > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> > > > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > > >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > > >> 작성:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> > > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -Taylor
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi devs,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm
> > 2.0.0 and
> > > > >>> link
> > > > >>>>>> to epic issue.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
> > > > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing
> some
> > > > >> pending
> > > > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for Travis
> CI
> > > > >> build,
> > > > >>> as
> > > > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at
> > least for
> > > > >>> me), I
> > > > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than
> > later,
> > > > and
> > > > >>> rely
> > > > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining tasks
> > for
> > > > >>> Storm
> > > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Stig Rohde Døssing <st...@gmail.com>.
+1 to cut an RC.
Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some changes,
but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 reviewed,
it might change some public methods.
Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code as we can
before release
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
avermeerbergen@gmail.com>:
> +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the future :)
> Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
> <kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
> >
> > Looking into all issues reported under epic
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are resolved/closed. I
> > don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead with 2.x
> > release.
> >
> > I am +1 to 2.0 release.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Kishor
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say a
> majority
> > > of the ones marked critical are not critical.
> > >
> > > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give others time
> to
> > > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
> > >
> > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
> absolutely
> > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but
> if
> > > you
> > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it in, so
> we
> > > can
> > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
> > >
> > > -Taylor
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out, and
> this
> > > is
> > > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0
> release.
> > > I
> > > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting ready
> for a
> > > 2.0
> > > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before another
> month
> > > > passes.
> > > >
> > > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters, currently
> > > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo specific on
> top.
> > > We
> > > > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
> > > >
> > > > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
> > > >
> > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
> > > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
> > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
> > > >
> > > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as
> critical.
> > > >
> > > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed prior
> to a
> > > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I would
> like
> > > to
> > > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to put
> > > together
> > > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are major
> > > > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Bobby Evans
> > > >
> > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
> absolutely
> > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but
> if
> > > you
> > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it in, so
> we
> > > can
> > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues.
> Thanks
> > > to
> > > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major issue
> left:
> > > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for that.
> > > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is
> backward
> > > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated things, so
> > > easier
> > > >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
> > > >>
> > > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to review
> and
> > > ship
> > > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some sanity
> > > tests
> > > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time on
> > > releasing
> > > >> Storm 2.0.0.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
> > > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
> > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> > > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > > >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > > >> 작성:
> > > >>
> > > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -Taylor
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi devs,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm
> 2.0.0 and
> > > >>> link
> > > >>>>>> to epic issue.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
> > > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing some
> > > >> pending
> > > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for Travis CI
> > > >> build,
> > > >>> as
> > > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at
> least for
> > > >>> me), I
> > > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than
> later,
> > > and
> > > >>> rely
> > > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining tasks
> for
> > > >>> Storm
> > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Alexandre Vermeerbergen <av...@gmail.com>.
+1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the future :)
Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
<kp...@oath.com.invalid> a écrit :
>
> Looking into all issues reported under epic
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are resolved/closed. I
> don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead with 2.x
> release.
>
> I am +1 to 2.0 release.
>
> Regards,
> -Kishor
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say a majority
> > of the ones marked critical are not critical.
> >
> > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give others time to
> > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
> >
> > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until absolutely
> > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but if
> > you
> > > do run across one please send something out before merging it in, so we
> > can
> > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> >
> >
> > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
> >
> > -Taylor
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out, and this
> > is
> > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0 release.
> > I
> > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting ready for a
> > 2.0
> > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before another month
> > > passes.
> > >
> > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters, currently
> > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo specific on top.
> > We
> > > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
> > >
> > > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
> > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
> > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
> > >
> > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as critical.
> > >
> > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed prior to a
> > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I would like
> > to
> > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to put
> > together
> > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are major
> > > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bobby Evans
> > >
> > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until absolutely
> > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but if
> > you
> > > do run across one please send something out before merging it in, so we
> > can
> > > set up the branches properly at that time.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues. Thanks
> > to
> > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major issue left:
> > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for that.
> > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is backward
> > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated things, so
> > easier
> > >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
> > >>
> > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to review and
> > ship
> > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some sanity
> > tests
> > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time on
> > releasing
> > >> Storm 2.0.0.
> > >>
> > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >>
> > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
> > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
> > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> > >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> > >> 작성:
> > >>
> > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
> > >>>
> > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> > >>>
> > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> > >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Taylor
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi devs,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm 2.0.0 and
> > >>> link
> > >>>>>> to epic issue.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
> > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing some
> > >> pending
> > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for Travis CI
> > >> build,
> > >>> as
> > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at least for
> > >>> me), I
> > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than later,
> > and
> > >>> rely
> > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining tasks for
> > >>> Storm
> > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by Kishorkumar Patil <kp...@oath.com.INVALID>.
Looking into all issues reported under epic
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are resolved/closed. I
don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead with 2.x
release.
I am +1 to 2.0 release.
Regards,
-Kishor
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say a majority
> of the ones marked critical are not critical.
>
> I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give others time to
> respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
>
> > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until absolutely
> > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but if
> you
> > do run across one please send something out before merging it in, so we
> can
> > set up the branches properly at that time.
>
>
> Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
>
> -Taylor
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out, and this
> is
> > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0 release.
> I
> > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting ready for a
> 2.0
> > release, and I really would like to see it happen before another month
> > passes.
> >
> > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters, currently
> > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo specific on top.
> We
> > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
> >
> > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
> 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
> 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
> >
> > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as critical.
> >
> > If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed prior to a
> > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I would like
> to
> > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to put
> together
> > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are major
> > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bobby Evans
> >
> > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until absolutely
> > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but if
> you
> > do run across one please send something out before merging it in, so we
> can
> > set up the branches properly at that time.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues. Thanks
> to
> >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major issue left:
> >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for that.
> >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is backward
> >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated things, so
> easier
> >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
> >>
> >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to review and
> ship
> >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some sanity
> tests
> >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time on
> releasing
> >> Storm 2.0.0.
> >>
> >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>
> >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
> >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
> >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
> >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
> >> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
> >> 작성:
> >>
> >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
> >>>
> >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
> >>>
> >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
> >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Taylor
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi devs,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm 2.0.0 and
> >>> link
> >>>>>> to epic issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
> >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing some
> >> pending
> >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for Travis CI
> >> build,
> >>> as
> >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at least for
> >>> me), I
> >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than later,
> and
> >>> rely
> >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining tasks for
> >>> Storm
> >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say a majority of the ones marked critical are not critical.
I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give others time to respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until absolutely
> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but if you
> do run across one please send something out before merging it in, so we can
> set up the branches properly at that time.
Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
-Taylor
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out, and this is
> not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0 release. I
> think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting ready for a 2.0
> release, and I really would like to see it happen before another month
> passes.
>
> We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters, currently
> following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo specific on top. We
> would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
>
> There are a few issues that we are aware of.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>
> There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as critical.
>
> If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed prior to a
> 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I would like to
> set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to put together
> a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are major
> blockers that show up I think we can do it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bobby Evans
>
> p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until absolutely
> necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up but if you
> do run across one please send something out before merging it in, so we can
> set up the branches properly at that time.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues. Thanks to
>> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major issue left:
>> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for that.
>> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is backward
>> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated things, so easier
>> to be reviewed and make decisions.
>>
>> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to review and ship
>> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some sanity tests
>> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time on releasing
>> Storm 2.0.0.
>>
>> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>
>> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
>> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
>> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
>>
>>
>> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> avermeerbergen@gmail.com>님이
>> 작성:
>>
>>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
>>>
>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>>>
>>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <ar...@apache.org>:
>>>> +1 to get it out soon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm 2.0.0 and
>>> link
>>>>>> to epic issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
>>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing some
>> pending
>>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for Travis CI
>> build,
>>> as
>>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at least for
>>> me), I
>>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than later, and
>>> rely
>>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining tasks for
>>> Storm
>>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>