+1 for option 1) On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to option 1) > > 2017-04-03 16:57 GMT+02:00 Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>: > > > Looks like #1 is better - 1.2.1 would be at least as stable as 1.2.0 > > > > Cheers > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 ... > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
