Hi Timo, I agree that not having the documentation available for the new features is not good. I'll do a pass over all the open documentation PRs and try to merge as many as possible. If I have the feeling, that we have enough docs, I'll release 1.3.0. For the table API, I can put a note into the release announcement.
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > What do you think about waiting with the release announcement for Flink > 1.3.1 until next week. > > IMHO the documentation is not in a good shape for a release annoucement > right now anyway. > > Most of the new features of the Table API are not documented. Docs for > other features are missing as well or exist in open PR [1]. > > Regards, > Timo > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6674 > > > Am 31.05.17 um 15:03 schrieb Aljoscha Krettek: > > Yes, FLINK-6783 might even have been a release blocker…. It’s a new >> feature that simply doesn’t work in most cases. >> >> On 31. May 2017, at 14:51, Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> We should also include FLINK-6783. It seems that >>> WindowedStream::aggregate is broken right now. >>> >>> >>> Am 31.05.17 um 14:31 schrieb Timo Walther: >>> >>>> I merged all Table API related PRs. >>>> >>>> I'm also fine with a 1.3.1 release this or next week. >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 31.05.17 um 14:08 schrieb Till Rohrmann: >>>> >>>>> I would be ok to quickly release 1.3.1 once the the respective PRs have >>>>> been merged. >>>>> >>>>> Just for your information, I'm not yet through with the testing of the >>>>> type >>>>> serializer upgrade feature, though. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Till >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Stefan Richter < >>>>> s.rich...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 for releasing now and providing a 1.3.1 release soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 31.05.2017 um 11:02 schrieb Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also lean towards getting the release out as soon as possible given >>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>>> it had been delayed quite a bit and there is no major issue without a >>>>>>> straightforward workaround (agreeing with Nico and Kostas). I am sure >>>>>>> >>>>>> once >>>>>> >>>>>>> people will start using the new features we will see more issues that >>>>>>> should be fixed asap in 1.3.1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding the critical bug Till had found, we could add a line about >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>>> the release notes so that people don't get blocked by it as there is >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> workaround possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Gyula >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kostas Kloudas <k.klou...@data-artisans.com> ezt írta (időpont: >>>>>>> 2017. >>>>>>> >>>>>> máj. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 31., Sze, 10:53): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I also tend to agree with the argument that says a release should >>>>>>>> be out >>>>>>>> as soon as possible, given that 1) it improves >>>>>>>> usability/functionality >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) at a minimum, it does not include new known bugs. The arguments >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> more or less aligned with Nico’s response on the matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Focusing on the bug that spiked the current discussion, I agree with >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Till >>>>>> >>>>>>> that this is alarming, as it passed all previous testing efforts, >>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>> add that if nobody so far encountered it, we could release 1.3 now >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> fix >>>>>> >>>>>>> it in the upcoming 1.3.1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kostas >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 31, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Nico Kruber <n...@data-artisans.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IMHO, any release that improves things and does not break anything >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> worth >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> releasing and should not be blocked on bugs that it did not cause. >>>>>>>>> There will always be a next (minor/major) release that may fix >>>>>>>>> this at >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>>> later >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> time, given that the time between releases is not too high. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Consider someone waiting for a bugfix/feature that made it into >>>>>>>>> 1.3.0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> who--if >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> delayed--would have to wait even longer for "his" bugfix/feature. >>>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> new >>>>>> >>>>>>> bugfixes (and there will always be more) can wait a few more days or >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> even a few >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> weeks and may be fixed in 1.3.1 or so. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nico >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 20:21:41 CEST Till Rohrmann wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Not sure whether it's a good argument to defer fixing major bugs >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> they have not been introduced with 1.3.0. It's actually alarming >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> these >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> things have not been found earlier given that we test our releases >>>>>>>>>> thoroughly. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >