Thanks Derek. Noted. I’ll give that patch some time for others to comment, and make sure it gets included.
-Taylor On Mar 20, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Derek Dagit <der...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > I'd like STORM-714, created recently. > > It is a UI style sheet change to keep things looking OK with recent changes. > > Otherwise it really bothers me :) > > -- > Derek > > From: Harsha <st...@harsha.io> > To: dev@storm.apache.org; P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:22 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 0.9.4 / 0.10.0 > > Taylor, > STORM-617 is on me I’ll send a patch in next couple of days. > > Thanks, > Harsha > > > > > On March 19, 2015 at 1:05:21 PM, P. Taylor Goetz (ptgo...@gmail.com) wrote: > > With the VOTE underway for a 0.9.4 release ( if you have time, please > evaluate the RC and vote accordingly), I’d like to turn our attention toward > the 0.10.0 release. > > I’d appreciate feedback on the state of the 0.10.0 (master) branch, > especially from those who have been involved in developing the > security-related features (which is one of the primary features of this > branch). > > Personally, I know of several organizations that are using a build of 0.10.0 > successfully in production with security enabled. The main issue I’ve seen > people struggle with is not a problem with code itself, but rather > difficulties in setting up a secure cluster and interacting with other > systems that are secured with Kerberos. I see that as more of a documentation > issue, and not something that should block a release. > > One feature that I think is essential for 0.10.0 is STORM-634 [1] (support > for rolling upgrades), which was recently merged. This should make > post-0.10.0 upgrades a lot less painful for users. > > Based on the feedback received thus far, it looks like all the suggested > patches have either been merged or are ready to be merged, with the exception > of STORM-617 [2] (no patch available yet). > > Should we wait for STORM-617? Any other patch suggestions? > > -Taylor > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-634 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-617 > > On Mar 12, 2015, at 12:29 PM, T B <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote: > > > +1 for releasing 0.9.4 > > > > Thomas > > > > On 11 March 2015 at 21:39, Richard Kellogg <rmkell...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Suggest we pull in STORM-559 as well. It is strictly an update to > >> documentation and has already been merged to trunk. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: P. Taylor Goetz [mailto:ptgo...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:51 PM > >> To: dev@storm.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 0.9.4 / 0.10.0 > >> > >> Thanks for the feedback Richard, Parth, and Jungtaek. I’ve made a note of > >> your suggestions for the releases. > >> > >> Does anyone else have any thoughts (esp. committers)? Should we move > >> forward with releasing? > >> > >> -Taylor > >> > >> On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:00 PM, 임정택 <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> storm-redis (scheduled to be released at 0.10.0) has one bugfix and > >>> one essential feature PRs. > >>> > >>> - bugfix: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-690 > >>> -- It fixes connection pool issue. > >>> - feature: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-691 > >>> -- It provides basic lookup / persist bolts so I believe it's necessary. > >>> > >>> Furthermore, I'd like to continue to support various data types with > >>> storm-redis Trident, after STORM-691 is merged to master. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > >>> > >>> > >>> 2015-03-06 2:37 GMT+09:00 P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>>> I’d like to start a discussion for releasing 0.9.4 (maintenance > >>>> release) and 0.10.0 (security release). > >>>> > >>>> 0.9.4 is basically a branch of 0.9.3 with two important bug fixes: > >>>> > >>>> STORM-329: fix cascading Storm failure by improving > >>>> reconnection strategy and buffering messages > >>>> STORM-130: Supervisor getting killed due to > >>>> java.io.FileNotFoundException: File '../stormconf.ser' does not exist. > >>>> > >>>> Both are long-standing bugs that have proven problematic for many users. > >>>> > >>>> I’d be in favor of releasing 0.9.4 with just those two fixes, but I’m > >>>> interested in finding out if anyone thinks there are additional > >>>> patches to master that should be considered for 0.9.4. > >>>> > >>>> 0.10.0 is a much larger release in terms of changes. In addition to > >>>> the changes above, it includes all the new security features and > >>>> numerous fixes and enhancements (see the CHANGELOG in the master branch > >> for a full list). > >>>> > >>>> Do we feel 0.10.0 is ready for release? If not what outstanding > >>>> bugs/patches should we consider before releasing? > >>>> > >>>> I’m fine holding off on a 0.10.0 release if we feel there is > >>>> additional work to be done, but I’d like to at least move forward with > >> 0.9.4 release. > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> -Taylor > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Name : 임 정택 > >>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net Twitter > >>> : http://twitter.com/heartsavior LinkedIn : > >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior > >> > >> > >> > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
