I was thinking if the any connector is released more frequently, their quality would be more mature and typically have lower impact on a Storm release (compared to now) … if we decide to bundle them in Storm as well. -roshan
On 1/31/18, 4:02 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <[email protected]> wrote: I think we all agree that releasing connectors as part of a Storm release hinders the frequency of the release cycle for both Storm proper, as well as connectors. If that’s the case, then the question is how to proceed. -Taylor > On Jan 31, 2018, at 6:46 PM, Roshan Naik <[email protected]> wrote: > > One thought is to … > - do a frequent separate release > - *and also* include the latest stuff along with each Storm release. > > -roshan > > > On 1/31/18, 10:43 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Stig Rohde Døssing" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > Hugo, > It's not my impression that anyone is complaining that storm-kafka-client > has been exceptionally buggy, or that we haven't been fixing the issues as > they crop up. The problem is that we're sitting on the fixes for way longer > than is reasonable, and even if we release Storm more often, users have to > go out of their way to know that they should really be using the latest > storm-kafka-client rather than the one that ships with their Storm > installation, because the version number of storm-kafka-client happens to > not mean anything regarding compatibility with Storm. > > Everyone, > > Most of what I've written here has already been said, but I've already > written it so... > > I really don't see the point in going through the effort of separating > connectors out to another repository if we're just going to make the other > repository the second class citizen connector graveyard. > > The point to separating storm-kafka-client out is so it can get a release > cycle different from Storm, so we can avoid the situation we're in now in > the future. There's obviously a flaw in our process when we have to choose > between breaking semantic versioning and releasing broken software. > > I agree that it would be good to release Storm a little more often, but I > don't think that fully addresses my concerns. Are we willing to increment > Storm's major version number if a connector needs to break its API (e.g. as > I want to do in https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2300)? > > I think a key observation is that Storm's core API is extremely stable. > Storm and the connectors aren't usually tightly coupled in the sense that > e.g. version 1.0.2 of storm-kafka-client would only work with Storm 1.0.2 > and not 1.0.0, so in many cases there's no reason you wouldn't use the > latest connector version instead of the one that happens to ship with the > version of Storm you're using. I think it would be attractive if we could > reduce the number of branches of connectors we need to maintain, and > instead keep a compatibility matrix between Storm and the connector in each > README, for the rare occasions when the Storm core API changes. > > +1 for trying out storm-kafka-client with its own release cycle and > branches/subrepo/whichever way we want to separate the code, but still part > of the main Storm project JIRA and mailing list. Worst case we merge it > back in after a while. We may want to think about how to do that before we > separate out, just so we don't release e.g. storm-kafka-client 2.3.1 and > then have to merge back to Storm which is still on 2.0.0. > > 2018-01-31 3:36 GMT+01:00 Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>: > >> Agreed for this topic: this is not related to current release candidate and >> verifying release candidate is higher priority. >> For me I didn't start verifying 1.1.2 / 1.0.6 RC2 because the other topic I >> initiated could affect the current release. I'll post a short notice in >> that discussion thread. >> >> -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >> >> 2018년 1월 31일 (수) 오전 10:58, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성: >> >>> Hit send on that too soon... >>> >>> This is an important discussion topic, but has no effect on the current >>> RCs. Id recommend focusing on the current releases and come back to this >>> after getting releases out. >>> >>> -Taylor >>> >>>> On Jan 30, 2018, at 8:51 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Also, in the interest of getting releases out, we have 3 open RC cycles >>> in flight. >>>> >>>> Discussion energy might be better focused on that. >>>> >>>> -Taylor >>>> >>>>> On Jan 30, 2018, at 7:52 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 30, 2018, at 7:31 PM, Harsha <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> In general connectors are independent of Storm run-time for >>> most parts. I.e if the APIs are not changed (storm-core or trident >> haven't >>> changed in years except the package re-name). You can take the latest >>> connector and run in storm 1.0 or higher. So the users doesn't need to >>> upgrade their storm cluster just to get a latest connector upgrade. Which >>> they might be doing it but by making the release separate and stating the >>> minimum supported storm version for the connectors will help the users. >>>>>> This makes it easier for the connectors to be released independently >>> of the core/run-time and makes it easy for them to be fixed and released >>> more often. But moving them to Bahir or other external project will make >> it >>> detached from Storm itself that it might not see any co-ordination as >>> reviewers from storm will need to be aware of an external project. >>>>>> My proposal would be >>>>>> 1. Can we create a sub-project in git under Storm so we can move the >>> connectors there and everything else related Storm applies there. >>>>>> 2. Can we keep maintaining storm connectors within same repo but >>> different release module for it . >>>>> >>>>> +1 That’s exactly my point. Just jettisoning connectors to Bahir >>> without commitments from the Storm community would be a mistake. >>>>> >>>>> Releasing connectors independently can be handled easily at the Maven >>> level. No need for a separate repo initiaially. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a separate topic but can improve the release timelines if we >>> have multiple release managers that are handling the maint release and >> also >>> main release versions. Its good to have rotation of release managers from >>> PMC so that everyone will understand the process and can spread the >>> responsibilities. There are threads started before but don't think they >> are >>> addressed or any action item is taken. We should start another thread to >>> discuss this process as well. >>>>> >>>>> Breaking up external modules into separately released versions would >> be >>> a great way to indoctrinate those new to the license grooming and release >>> process. Everyone could participate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Harsha >>>>> >>>>> -Taylor >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Hugo Da Cruz Louro wrote: >>>>>>> I think that the bahir approach makes sense for connectors that >> don’t >>>>>>> fall into the "first class support” category. I am in favor of >> moving >>>>>>> such lower adoption connectors and have the interested communities >>>>>>> support them with the most suitable release cycle. Connectors that >> are >>>>>>> idle, such as some examples that Jungtaek gave, we should consider >>>>>>> removing them altogether, especially if they are so outdated that >> they >>>>>>> may not even work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mainstream connectors such as storm-kafka-client should be kept in >> the >>>>>>> Storm repo. For example, Flink keeps flink-connector-kafka-0.x in >> the >>>>>>> Flink repo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am in agreement with Jungtaek when he says: "fixing critical bugs >> in >>>>>>> storm-kafka-client should trigger release, instead of waiting for >>> Storm >>>>>>> core to have some fixes to be worth to release”. Storm’s release >>> cadence >>>>>>> is currently not very high and one can argue that Storm entirely >> could >>>>>>> benefit from more frequent releases. If it is sto rm-kafka-client >>>>>>> triggering those releases, so be it. Moving forward I do not expect >>> the >>>>>>> storm-kafka-client connector to be subject to so many changes that >> it >>>>>>> would warrant its own release cycle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I also would like to highlight that although storm-kafka-client has >>> been >>>>>>> the center of this discussion, as it was mentioned in this >>>>>>> thread<https://goo.gl/VY7QTG>, storm-kafka-client has had a much >> less >>>>>>> rocky road to stability compared to for example storm-kafka. >> Therefore >>>>>>> it’s worth evaluating if the challenges that we have faced with >> storm- >>>>>>> kafka-client have been out of norm for such an important and complex >>>>>>> feature, and if they warrant significant changes in how we do >> things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Hugo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 9:18 PM, Jungtaek Lim >>>>>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me add a proof of my opinion: major patch of storm-eventhubs >>> hasn't >>>>>>> been getting even a comment over 4 months. >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2322 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd rather want to discuss regarding discontinue supporting >>> officially if >>>>>>> we no longer interest of, or we don't have resource to support, or >> any >>>>>>> valid reasons. If we agree on discontinue supporting officially, we >>> can >>>>>>> move out to other repo. and let it self maintained. It may be able >> to >>> get >>>>>>> attention and have enough contributors so that we feel better to get >>> to >>>>>>> Storm core Repository again, or it can be silently forgotten. It >>> shouldn't >>>>>>> affect Storm core repository at any case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2018년 1월 30일 (화) 오후 2:03, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we worry about breaking somethings along with our >>>>>>> users/consumers/distributors, picking one of less used/updated >>> connector as >>>>>>> experiment makes more sense to me. It's OK if we want to pick one of >>> most >>>>>>> active and widely used connector intentionally to accelerate >>> experiment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Decoupling connectors and moving to other repo. like Bahir will make >>> it >>>>>>> clear who are having interest of which connectors. storm-eventhubs >> for >>>>>>> example, major code contributions were done from MS developers. Now >>> they >>>>>>> are gone, and I don't know even storm-eventhubs are compatible with >>> recent >>>>>>> Azure Eventhub. That's just a one of them. I've seen many connectors >>> in >>>>>>> same, or similar, or possible (say truck number 1) situation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2018년 1월 30일 (화) 오후 1:30, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 8:03 PM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Do we ensure they're all maintained? >>>>>>> -- Did we exclude inactive committers/PMCs for connector's committer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sponsors, and do they have enough committer sponsors after that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good point. We’ve had some sponsors go silent recently. Maybe ping >>>>>>> sponsors and ask if they wish to maintain sponsorship? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a sponsor for a number of connectors, I’ll check on the ones I’ve >>>>>>> sponsored. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Do they all worth to keep maintaining in Storm main repository? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, that’s a question of whether there is user/dev interest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Should we trigger release if we find and resolve critical/blocker >>> issue >>>>>>> from them? If not, why we allow to leave the thing which is in main >>>>>>> repository as inconsistent state? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some are tied to fairly well established protocols, some target >> really >>>>>>> volatile APIs. Bug reports and mailing list activity may not be a >> good >>>>>>> status indicator. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Storm’s Kafka integration was the initial model for the “batteries >>>>>>> included” impetus behind `external`. If we want to evolve how that >>> works, >>>>>>> why not start there, see what works/doesn’t work, and adapt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don’t want to shock our users/consumers/distributors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Taylor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >> > >
