IMHO, we still have a chance to respect semver via planning release 1.2.0 sooner.
1.2.0 will bring some other side of improvements as well as storm-kafka-client (state backend, and ES connector, and so on), so I think it's worth to. Storm 1.1.0 was released over 4 months ago, so I don't feel too hasty to discuss about 1.2.0. Non-bug type issues resolved as 1.2.0 are below: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20and%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20resolution%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Fixed%2C%20Done)%20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not%20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C%201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4%2C%201.1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2)%20and%20type%20!%3D%20Bug The only thing is how much the release phase requires efforts from both release manager and community participating to verify the release, given that I already proposed two releases. Taylor has been volunteering the heavy load of releasing all the time, so maybe need to hear his opinion about this. - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) 2017년 8월 27일 (일) 오전 6:12, Stig Rohde Døssing <[email protected]>님이 작성: > Jungtaek, > I agree that we should provide a less buggy storm-kafka-client module as > soon as possible. I'm happy to ignore semver for it for a few versions, > since it still seems pretty common that we have to break the API to fix a > bug or unintended behavior. If we're putting 2648 into 1.1.2, we should > also pull back a lot of the fixes targeted for 1.2.0. The list is > > resolved, but only applied to 1.x not 1.1.x > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2640 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2548 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2506 > > pending, fix available but needs review, then 1.x backport > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549 > > I may have missed some, others can supplement. > > Alexandre, > If we're ignoring semver for storm-kafka-client I don't mind putting 2648 > in 1.1.2. I just wanted to suggest how you can avoid being blocked by 2648 > until there's a proper release of it. > > > 2017-08-26 15:12 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>: > > > Stig, > > I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as stable as > > possible. > > Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on storm-kafka-client? If > we > > have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also. > > > > Alexandre, > > STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the type of issue > > is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we could make > > the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs consensus anyway. > > > > 2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen < > > [email protected]>님이 > > 작성: > > > > > Hello Stig, > > > > > > For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable / > > officialized > > > versions. > > > > > > Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old Storm Kafka > > > client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible with > Kafka > > > 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do. > > > > > > But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a performance > cost > > > (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and Kafka Broker > > > 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its new > > > protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker 0.10 clusters > > > urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't possible with > Kafa > > > clients < 0.10 > > > > > > BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for production > > because > > > of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so we're quite > > > interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix for > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 > > > > > > Hope it clarifies, > > > Alexandre > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <[email protected] > >: > > > > > > > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I think. > > > > > > > > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think it would > be > > > > good to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549, > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675, > > > > https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed. > > > > > > > > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build > > > > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe that > > storm-kafka > > > > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works for me in > > > tests > > > > on an 0.11 broker. > > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen < > > > > [email protected] > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2648 > > > > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency etc stats > > > when > > > > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not having this > > > > feature > > > > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib (limited to > Kafka > > > > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka 0.10.x > > > > compatibility). > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Alexandre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682 > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on Storm > 1.0.4 > > > and > > > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. Personally it > looks > > > > like > > > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now. > > > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases quickly > for > > > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to include any > > bug > > > > fix > > > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can create epic > > issues > > > > and > > > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
