Would also be great to include IMPALA-6286 which is wrong-results bug with runtime filters.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Tauber-Marshall < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think it would be great to get a fix for > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6285 in 2.11.0 if possible. > > It > > apparently could create a large performance boost. > > > > It's marked as a Blocker with affects version 2.11, but no target > version. > > There are a few other tickets like this: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-3887?jql= > project%20%3D%20IMPALA%20AND%20affectedVersion%20%3D%20% > 22Impala%202.11.0%22%20AND%20%22Target%20Version%22%20%3D% > 20EMPTY%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20EMPTY%20and%20Priority% > 20%3D%20Blocker%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > > > Good point. Of the four JIRAs shown there, two are flaky tests that I don't > think are really blockers (IMPALA-6257 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6257> and IMPALA-3887 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-3887>) and the other two ( > IMPALA-6285 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6285> and > IMPALA-6081 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6081>) have > reviews out that have already been +2ed. So, it seems like a good idea to > wait for those two to go in. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Tauber-Marshall < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Since the response from the community has been good, and now that all > of > > > the blocker JIRAs targeted for 2.11 have been closed, I propose that we > > cut > > > the release at: > > > > > > commit a4916e6d5f5f3542100af791534bfaf9ed544720 > > > Author: Michael Ho <[email protected]> > > > Date: Tue Dec 5 23:01:00 2017 -0800 > > > > > > IMPALA-6281: Fix use-after-free in InitAuth() > > > > > > There are still a lot of open JIRAs > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-6225?jql= > > > project%20%3D%20IMPALA%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20% > > > > > 22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20%22Target% > 20Version%22%20%3D%20% > > > 22Impala%202.11.0%22> > > > targeted at 2.11 at lower priorities, so it would be helpful if people > > > could go through the ones assigned to them and make sure nothing > > important > > > is being missed, otherwise we'll bulk update all of these to target > 2.12 > > > > > > If there are no further concerns, I'll start testing at that commit, > and > > if > > > all goes well create a release candidate and [VOTE] thread. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:12 PM Matthew Jacobs <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Thanks, Thomas! > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:50 PM Michael Brown <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Thomas Tauber-Marshall < > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been over 2 months since we released Apache Impala 2.10.0 > > and > > > > > there > > > > > > have been new feature improvements and a good number of bug fixes > > > > checked > > > > > > in since then. > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose that we release 2.11.0 soon and I volunteer to be its > > > release > > > > > > manager. Please speak up and let the community know if anyone has > > any > > > > > > objections to this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sent from My iPhone > > > > > > > > > >
