What are others’ opinions on removing the serialversionUid an moving ahead with 
an RC4?

-Taylor

> On Feb 9, 2018, at 7:21 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I just went ahead verifying current RC except serialization UID issue in
> Fields. I could also vote for RC4 immediately if necessary.
> 
> +1 (binding)
> 
>> source
> 
> - verify file (signature, MD5, SHA)
> -- source, tar.gz : OK
> -- source, zip : OK
> 
> - extract file
> -- source, tar.gz : OK
> -- source, zip : OK
> 
> - diff-ing extracted files between tar.gz and zip : OK
> 
> - build source with JDK 7
> -- source, tar.gz : OK
> 
> - build source dist
> -- source, tar.gz : OK
> 
> - build binary dist
> -- source, tar.gz : OK
> 
>> binary
> 
> - verify file (signature, MD5, SHA)
> -- binary, tar.gz : OK
> -- binary, zip : OK
> 
> - extract file
> -- binary, tar.gz : OK
> -- binary, zip : OK
> 
> - diff-ing extracted files between tar.gz and zip : OK
> 
> - launch daemons : OK
> 
> - run RollingTopWords (local) : OK
> 
> - run RollingTopWords (remote) : OK
>  - activate / deactivate / rebalance / kill : OK
>  - logviewer (worker dir, daemon dir) : OK
>  - change log level : OK
>  - thread dump, heap dump, restart worker : OK
>  - log search : OK
> 
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> 
> 2018년 2월 9일 (금) 오후 6:18, Erik Weathers <eweath...@groupon.com.invalid>님이 작성:
> 
>> I'm fine submitting a PR to back that line out (or any of you committer
>> folks could just rip it out).
>> 
>> But I'd like to understand Storm a bit better as part of making this
>> decision. :-)  Am I correct in assuming it would only be a problem if the
>> serialized Fields were stored somewhere (e.g., ZooKeeper, local filesystem)
>> and then read back in after the Nimbus/Workers are brought back up after
>> the upgrade?  Seems Fields is used in a *lot* of places, and I don't know
>> precisely what is serialized for reused upon Storm Nimbus/Worker daemon
>> restarts.  I believe there are examples of Fields being used to create
>> Spout or Bolt objects that are used to create the StormTopology object,
>> which I believe is serialized into ZooKeeper.  But I'm not clear if it's
>> directly the Fields object itself or some kind of translation from that
>> into the thrift objects that make up StormTopology.
>> 
>> I also don't know exactly when kryo is applicable in Storm.  I've never
>> done anything with kryo directly.
>> 
>> - Erik
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:00 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> *serialized* ;)
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 12:48 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I’d have to check (can’t right now), but I think that class gets
>>> sterilized via kryo. If that’s not the case, yes, it could cause
>> problems.
>>>> 
>>>> I think the safest option would be to remove the serialversionuid.
>>>> 
>>>> -Taylor
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Erik Weathers
>> <eweath...@groupon.com.INVALID>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Something I just realized -- in the storm-kafka-client stomping into
>>>>> 1.0.x-branch PR, I backported a change to Fields.java which added a
>>>>> serialVersionUID.
>>>>> Could that potentially break topologies when you upgrade storm-core on
>>> the
>>>>> servers (nimbus, workers) from 1.0.{1..5} to 1.0.6?   I'm not super
>>>>> familiar with the serialization that occurs in Storm and whether that
>>> could
>>>>> break people.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2550/files#diff-71a428d
>>> 508c4f5af0bfe3cc186e8edcf
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Erik
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@oath.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 I built the code from the git tag, ran all the unit tests (which
>>> passed
>>>>>> the first time), and ran some tests on a single node cluster.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It all looked good.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Bobby
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:22 PM P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is a call to vote on releasing Apache Storm 1.0.6 (rc3)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Full list of changes in this release:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-1.
>>>>>> 0.6-rc3/RELEASE_NOTES.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The tag/commit to be voted upon is v1.0.6:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=tree;h=
>>>>>> e68365f9f947ddd1794b2edef2149fdfaa1590a2;hb=7993db01580ce62d
>>> 44866dc00e0a72
>>>>>> 66984638d0
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The source archive being voted upon can be found here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-1.
>>>>>> 0.6-rc3/apache-storm-1.0.6-src.tar.gz
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Other release files, signatures and digests can be found here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-1.0.6-rc3/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The release artifacts are signed with the following key:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=blob_
>>>>>> plain;f=KEYS;hb=22b832708295fa2c15c4f3c70ac0d2bc6fded4bd
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The Nexus staging repository for this release is:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>>> storm-1060
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Storm 1.0.6.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When voting, please list the actions taken to verify the release.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Storm 1.0.6
>>>>>>> [ ]  0 No opinion
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who contributed to this release.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Taylor
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Reply via email to