Thanks fort starting this Ufuk.
I would like to add the following issues to 1.1.4:
Build errors due to Storm dependencies *(fix pending)*
- [FLINK-4298] [storm compatibility] Add proper repository for Closure
dependencies.
Stability on S3 considering eventual consistency *(fix pending)*
- [FLINK-4218] [checkpoints] Do not fail checkpoints when state size
cannot be determined
Avoiding Zombie TaskManagers *(still needs to be done)*
- [FLINK-3347] [akka] TaskManager (or its ActorSystem) need to restart
in case they notice quarantine
Adding a limit to the amount of data spilled during checkpoint alignments *(fix
is work in progress)*
- [FLINK-4904] [checkpoints] Add a limit for how much data may be
spilled in checkpoint alignments
I can push the first two fixes to the 1.1.4 branch in a bit, the fourth one
later today.
The third one (akka) is still pending.
Best,
Stephan
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I would like to start the discussion for kicking off the next bug fix
> release, Flink 1.1.4. What do you think about aiming for a RC by end
> of this week?
>
> Users reported some instabilities/inconveniences that would be good to fix.
>
> Personally, I would like to backport the following fixes:
>
> (1) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4619: Answer client if
> savepoint restore fails (Already merged for master, needs minimal
> adjustment for 1.1)
> (2) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4715: Safety net for
> stuck task cancellation (Already reviewed for master, waiting for
> tests to finish of backport)
> (3) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4510: Always create
> CheckpointCoordinator (Already merged for master, needs minimal
> adjustments for 1.1)
>
> Furthermore, I would like to address the following:
>
> (4) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4445: Add option to
> ignore unmatched state when restoring from savepoint
> (5) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4894: Don't block on
> buffer request after broadcast event
>
> Strictly speaking, the (4) is not a bug fix. But given that it would
> only add an optional flag to savepoint restoring and should have been
> addressed for 1.1.0 already, I would like to get it in.
>
