I have a release candidate for 1.1.0 built, but I can’t stage the convenience binaries because they are now over the ASF subversion size limit of 200MB.
I’ll work with infra to figure out a solution. -Taylor > On Feb 16, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > > Now all issues on the Storm 1.1.0 epic got resolved. :) > > There're still some bugfix pull requests for storm-kafka-client, but > releasing Storm 1.1.0 has been tremendously dragged (I initiated this at > Sep. 2016) so unless they're critical, I'm +1 on starting release phase on > Storm 1.1.0 ASAP. > > - Jungtaek Lim > > 2017년 2월 14일 (화) 오전 11:41, Harsha Chintalapani <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > STORM-2340 is more of a feature . Auto-commit mode in storm-kafka used > rarely and most users > run the kafka spout with ackers and get at-least once guarantee. If its > going to longer to address the PR reviews > I am +1 on moving this out of Storm 1.1.0. We already quite a few patches > storm-kafka-client and 1.1.0 release brings in lot of improvements > and bug-fixes. > -Harsha > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 6:15 PM Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There seems some pull requests for bugfix/improvement on >> storm-kafka-client, and some authors in PRs are not availble for now. >> (waiting 7 days) >> >> If we plan to get 1.1.1 out soon (say 1 month later or even closer) we can >> postpone, but if not, it might be better to coordinate these things ASAP >> and include to 1.1.0. >> >> There seems to be other small PRs, but nothing seems critical so it would >> be OK to not wait for merging. >> >> - Jungtaek Lim >> >> 2017년 2월 9일 (목) 오전 6:48, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성: >> >> Right now we’re down to 1 open issue on the 1.1.0 release epic: STORM-2250 >> which is under active review/discussion. >> >> Assuming that is mergeable in the near future, are there any other open >> issues that should be considered for this release? >> >> -Taylor >> >> >>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 4:48 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for putting this list together Jungtaek. I added a few to the 1.1 >> release epic that I think are important. Feel free to do the same. >>> >>> Looks like we have a few to go, but there are pull requests for them. >> It’s mostly just a matter of reviews and review responses, so I think we >> are close. >>> >>> -Taylor >>> >>>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:41 AM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Seems like there're not blockers for 1.1.0, but some pull requests are >>>> worth to check. >>>> There're pending pull requests for storm-kafka-client waited on >> STORM-2225. >>>> Given that STORM-2225 is now merged, we might need to take a look at. >>>> >>>> *- reviewing* >>>> >>>> [storm-core] >>>> >>>>> STORM-2324 : Fix deployment failure if resources directory is missing >> in >>>> topology jar >>>> (master) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1908 >>>> (1.x) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1898 >>>> >>>>> STORM-2321 Handle blobstore zk key deletion in KeySequenceNumber >>>> (master) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1904 >>>> (1.x) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1905 >>>> >>>> [storm-kafka] >>>> >>>>> STORM-2270 Kafka spout should consume from latest when ZK partition >>>> commit offset bigger than the latest offset >>>> (1.x) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1851 >>>> >>>> [storm-kafka-client] >>>> >>>>> STORM-2281: Running Multiple Kafka Spouts (Trident) Throws Illegal >> State >>>> Exception >>>> (1.x) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1902 >>>> >>>>> STORM-2315 Storm kafka client does not commit offsets when ack is >> disabled >>>> (1.x) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1891 >>>> >>>>> fix: KafkaSpout is blocked in AutoCommitMode >>>> (master) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1863 >>>> >>>>> STORM-2250: Kafka Spout Refactoring to Increase Modularity and >> Testability >>>> (master) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1832 >>>> >>>>> STORM-2014: Put logic around dropping messages into RetryService, >> remove >>>> maxRetry setting from new KafkaSpout >>>> (master) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1605 >>>> >>>>> fix NullPointException with acked.get(rtp) >>>> (master) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1807 >>>> >>>> [storm-sql] >>>> >>>>> STORM-1443 [Storm SQL] Support customizing parallelism in StormSQL >>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1739 >>>> >>>> *- pending* >>>> >>>> [storm-kafka-client] >>>> >>>>> STORM-2296 Kafka spout no dup on leader changes >>>> (1.0.x) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1873 >>>> (1.x) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1888 >>>> >>>> [storm-sql] >>>> >>>>> STORM-2148 [Storm SQL] Trident mode: back to code generate and compile >>>> Trident topology >>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1743 >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >>>> >>>> 2017년 2월 2일 (목) 오전 8:14, Harsha Chintalapani <[email protected]>님이 작성: >>>> >>>>> Trying to check the status on this release of 1.1.0. Are we going to > do >>>>> this release anytime soon? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:50 PM S G <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Not sure if its a little late to include for the 1.1.0 and 1.0.3 >> releases >>>>>> now, but can we consider using zookeeper 3.4.9 for the future > versions >> as >>>>>> 3.4.9 brings in a lot of stability improvements ( >>>>>> http://zookeeper.apache.org/releases.html) and storm is still using >>>>> 3.4.6 >>>>>> ( >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/master/pom.xml) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:54 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the update Jungtaek. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’m verifying the patches now. And they should be mergeable shortly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we’ll likely be ready for 1.1.0 and 1.0.3 releases next > week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Taylor >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 6, 2017, at 3:40 AM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I just submitted a patch for STORM-2176 >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2176>. Since it's a >>>>> small >>>>>>> fix, >>>>>>>> we just need to handle STORM-2228 >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2228> to release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2017년 1월 5일 (목) 오후 1:43, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Recently we receive some requests regarding release Storm 1.0.3, > so >>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> like to bump this again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Given that blocker issues for Storm 1.1.0 are also blocker for >>>>> 1.0.3, >>>>>>> I'd >>>>>>>>> like to ask a favor of taking care of 'open' / 'in progress' > issues >>>>> on >>>>>>>>> 1.1.0 epic. >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1856 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There're one 'open' issue and three 'in progress' issues. Two of >>>>> three >>>>>>> 'in >>>>>>>>> progress' issues are tiny fix so easy to be handled, so actual >>>>>> blockers >>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> STORM-2176 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2176> and >>>>>>>>> STORM-2228 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2228>. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2016년 11월 17일 (목) 오후 11:41, Satish Duggana < >>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> 님이 >>>>>>>>> 작성: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> STORM-2205: Race condition in getting nimbus summaries while ZK >>>>>>>>> connections are reconnected. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This issue seems to occur in our environments and I would like > this >>>>> to >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> part of 1.1.0. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Satish. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have no idea on storm-kafka-client, but some bugfix issues for >>>>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client are waiting for reviewing / merging. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> STORM-2014 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2014> >>>>>>>>>> STORM-2087 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2087> >>>>>>>>>> STORM-2104 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2104> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If someone can review them in several days it would be great. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I hope that we include currently opened pull requests for Storm >> SQL >>>>>> so >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> we can release 'usable Storm SQL' more usable, but I'm also OK to >>>>>>>>> postpone >>>>>>>>>> them to be included to next release if they drag the release. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> STORM-1446 <http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1446> >>>>>>>>>> STORM-1443 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1443> >>>>>>>>>> STORM-2148 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2148> >>>>>>>>>> STORM-2170 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2170> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I can see some pull requests which address Trident > implementations >>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client, storm-mongodb, storm-cassandra. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> storm-kafka-client: STORM-1694 >>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1694> (patch for 2.0 >>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> merged, patch for 1.x is ready for reviewing) >>>>>>>>>> storm-cassandra: STORM-1369 >>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1369> >>>>>>>>>> storm-mongodb: STORM-1607 <https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/STORM-1607> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If we want to cut the release now, we could include only bugfix >>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> postpone others. Otherwise we could discuss and include some or >> all >>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> above. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think? When we want to start the release process for >>>>>> 1.1.0? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2016년 11월 16일 (수) 오전 4:11, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 >>>>> 작성: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Xin, I added it to the 1.1.0 epic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Taylor >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Xin Wang <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> STORM-2198 ( PR: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1773 ) >>>>> fixes >>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> bug >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> storm-hdfs. Do we have a consideration to include this? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Xin Wang (vesense) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2016-11-15 10:03 GMT+08:00 Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Some issues on Storm SQL are resolved but not documented yet. >>>>> I'll >>>>>>>>> file >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>> issue and assign to 1.1.0 release epic. >>>>>>>>>>>> And also I want to address dropping aggregation and join on >> Storm >>>>>> SQL >>>>>>>>>>>> Trident mode before releasing. I'll assign it too. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2016년 11월 15일 (화) 오전 5:55, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected] >>> 님이 >>>>>> 작성: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we’re very close. I would like to confirm that the >>>>>>> 1.x-branch >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not affected by STORM-2176. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The worker lifecycle API was added in 1.0, but doesn’t work in >>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>> released version due to STORM-2176. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If there are any other open JIRAs that anyone is passionate >>>>> about, >>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a good time to assign them to the 1.1.0 release epic >>>>>>>>>>>> (STORM-1856). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 27, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected] >>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally Pacemaker H/A, Supervisor V2, and Storm SQL PRs which >>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>>>> opened >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the last mail (4 weeks ago) are all merged to 1.x branch. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There're some more PRs on Storm SQL opened, but given that we >>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>> new minor at any time when we feel it's enough change, I can >>>>> wait >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They didn't get reviewed yet indeed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there something else we would want to include it to 1.1.0? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016년 10월 1일 (토) 오전 9:30, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 >>>>> 작성: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, merging and porting back to three branches are >>>>>> painful >>>>>>>>>>>>> enough, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially we don't have merging script and having verbose >>>>>> process >>>>>>>>> (I >>>>>>>>>>>>> mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHANGELOG). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be better if merging process is automated (by >> running >>>>>>>>> script >>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so), so I'd +1 to revisit Harsha's suggestion (adopting > Kafka >>>>>>> merge >>>>>>>>>>>>> script) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and modify script to fit to Storm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (It will not work if it's the case we need to handle PRs for >>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>>>>> version >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line, since 'Close' in commit log doesn't close the PR if > its >>>>>>>>> target >>>>>>>>>>>>> branch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not master.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, without automation I don't want to maintain more >>>>> version >>>>>>>>>>>> lines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm looking at the announces from other projects, and others >>>>> are >>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintaining two version lines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we maintain 2.0.0 version line we can't reduce version >>>>>> lines >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> 2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but hopefully at most 3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, let's check pending pull requests and enumerate which >> can >>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>> included >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 1.0.0, and start/finish review and merge them soon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me Supervisor V2 and Pacemaker H/A, and pending Storm > SQL >>>>>> PRs >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included, since they are small or in reviewing and expected >> to >>>>>>> pass >>>>>>>>>>>>> review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phase soon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And some small PRs. There're other valuable PRs in PR list >>>>> but >>>>>>> I'm >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure we can review them soon. One example is unified API.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One issue which is not clear is STORM-2006 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1595>. This is a >>>>>> candidate >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>> me, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but gets blocked while reviewing. If we plan to put great >>>>> effort >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> revise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Metric we can skip this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please enumerate other PRs as well if you want to include in >>>>>>> 1.1.0. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016년 9월 30일 (금) 오후 11:09, Bobby Evans >>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 님이 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 작성: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good to me. It would be nice to get some of the new >>>>>>>>> features >>>>>>>>>>>>> out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we expect to maintain both 1.0.x and 1.1.x lines with bug >>>>>>> fixes? >>>>>>>>>>>>> And if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so for how long do we want to do this for? - Bobby >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 7:35 PM, Jungtaek Lim < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's been 5 months after releasing Storm 1.0.0, and now 1.x >>>>>> branch >>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>> lots >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of CHANGELOG and also pending reviews. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's also been a long time after 1.1.0 RC1 is canceled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it may be good to put some efforts to review and >> merge >>>>>>>>>> pending >>>>>>>>>>>>> pull >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requests (except things which takes time to review and > test), >>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1.0 soon. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also open to volunteer release manager for 1.1.0 after > we >>>>>>>>>> document >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process of official release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>
