Just so we’re all on the same page. ;-) There was https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5808 which was a bug that we initially discovered in Flink 1.2 which was/is about missing verification for the correctness of the combination of parallelism and max-parallelism. Due to lacking test coverage this introduced two more bugs: - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209: StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
IMHO, the options are: 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch and live with the bug still being present 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some problems that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in streaming programs Best, Aljoscha > On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > > I don't know what is best to do, but I think releasing 1.2.1 with > potentially more bugs than 1.2.0 is not a good option. > I suspect a good workaround for FLINK-6188 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188> is setting the > parallelism manually for operators that can't cope with the default -1 > parallelism. > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> You mean reverting the changes around FLINK-5808 [1]? This is what >> introduced the follow-up FLINK-6188 [2]. >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5808 >> [2]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 >> >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, at 19:10, Robert Metzger wrote: >>> I think reverting FLINK-6188 for the 1.2 branch might be a good idea. >>> FLINK-6188 introduced two new bugs, so undoing the FLINK-6188 fix will >>> lead >>> only to one known bug in 1.2.1, instead of an uncertain number of issues. >>> So 1.2.1 is not going to be worse than 1.2.0 >>> >>> The fix will hopefully make it into 1.2.2 then. >>> >>> Any other thoughts on this? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I merged the fix for FLINK-6044 to the release-1.2 and release-1.1 >> branch. >>>> >>>> 2017-03-31 15:02 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> We should also backport the fix for FLINK-6044 to Flink 1.2.1. >>>>> >>>>> I'll take care of that. >>>>> >>>>> 2017-03-30 18:50 GMT+02:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: >>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 turns out to be a >> bit >>>>>> more involved, see my comments on the PR: >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said there, maybe we should revert the commits regarding >>>>>> parallelism/max-parallelism changes and release and then fix it >> later. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: >>>>>>> I commented on FLINK-6214: I think it's working as intended, >> although >>>> we >>>>>>> could fix the javadoc/doc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, at 17:35, Timo Walther wrote: >>>>>>>> A user reported that all tumbling and slinding window assigners >>>>>> contain >>>>>>>> a pretty obvious bug about offsets. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6214 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we should also fix this for 1.2.1. What do you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 29/03/17 um 11:30 schrieb Robert Metzger: >>>>>>>>> Hi Haohui, >>>>>>>>> I agree that we should fix the parallelism issue. Otherwise, >> the >>>>>> 1.2.1 >>>>>>>>> release would introduce a new bug. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Haohui Mai < >> ricet...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -1 (non-binding) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We recently found out that all jobs submitted via UI will >> have a >>>>>>>>>> parallelism of 1, potentially due to FLINK-5808. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Filed FLINK-6209 to track it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ~Haohui >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM Chesnay Schepler < >>>>>> ches...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If possible I would like to include FLINK-6183 & FLINK-6184 >> as >>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They fix 2 metric-related issues that could arise when a >> Task is >>>>>>>>>>> cancelled very early. (like, right away) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was >>>>>> never closed >>>>>>>>>>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer >> metrics >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I opened a PR for FLINK-6188: https://github.com/apache/ >>>>>>>>>> flink/pull/3616 >>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616> >>>>>>>>>>>> This improves the previously very sparse test coverage for >>>>>>>>>>> timestamp/watermark assigners and fixes the bug. >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Mar 2017, at 10:22, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Aljoscha. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < >>>>>>>>>> aljos...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I filed this issue, which was observed by a user: >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that’s blocking for 1.2.1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Mar 2017, at 18:57, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RC1 doesn't contain Stefan's backport for the >> Asynchronous >>>>>> snapshots >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for heap-based keyed state that has been merged. Should >> we >>>>>> create >>>>>>>>>> RC2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with that fix since the voting period only starts on >> Monday? >>>>>> I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would only mean rerunning the scripts on your side, >>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> – Ufuk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger < >>>>>>>>>> rmetz...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Flink community, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as >> Apache >>>>>> Flink >>>>>>>>>>> version 1.2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit to be voted on: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *732e55bd* (* >>>>>>>>>>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/flink/commit/ >> 732e55bd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://git-wip-us.apache.org/ >>>> repos/asf/flink/commit/732e55b >>>>>> d>*) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Branch: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release-1.2.1-rc1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/>* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release artifacts are signed with the key with >>>>>> fingerprint >>>>>>>>>>> D9839159: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The staging repository for this release can be found >> at: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/ >> content/repositories/orgapache >>>>>> flink-1116 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
