Hi all, There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311 which I'm working on as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should be fixed before a 2.x release
I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs up for them in community soon. I apologize for slowing things up. Thanks, Govind. On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for releasing 2.0. > > May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged. > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1 to cut an RC. > > > > Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in > > > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719 > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some > changes, > > but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly) > > also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 > reviewed, > > it might change some public methods. > > > > Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code as we > can > > before release > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947 > > > > Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen < > > [email protected]>: > > > > > +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the future :) > > > Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil > > > <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > > > Looking into all issues reported under epic > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are > resolved/closed. > > I > > > > don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead with > > 2.x > > > > release. > > > > > > > > I am +1 to 2.0 release. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > -Kishor > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say a > > > majority > > > > > of the ones marked critical are not critical. > > > > > > > > > > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give others > > time > > > to > > > > > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included. > > > > > > > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until > > > absolutely > > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up > but > > > if > > > > > you > > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it in, > > so > > > we > > > > > can > > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit. > > > > > > > > > > -Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out, > and > > > this > > > > > is > > > > > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0 > > > release. > > > > > I > > > > > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting ready > > > for a > > > > > 2.0 > > > > > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before another > > > month > > > > > > passes. > > > > > > > > > > > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters, > > currently > > > > > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo specific > on > > > top. > > > > > We > > > > > > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a few issues that we are aware of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND% > > > > > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D% > > > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > > > > > > > > > > > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as > > > critical. > > > > > > > > > > > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed > prior > > > to a > > > > > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I > would > > > like > > > > > to > > > > > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to > put > > > > > together > > > > > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are > major > > > > > > blockers that show up I think we can do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Bobby Evans > > > > > > > > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until > > > absolutely > > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up > but > > > if > > > > > you > > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it in, > > so > > > we > > > > > can > > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues. > > > Thanks > > > > > to > > > > > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major issue > > > left: > > > > > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for > > that. > > > > > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is > > > backward > > > > > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated things, > > so > > > > > easier > > > > > >> to be reviewed and make decisions. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to > review > > > and > > > > > ship > > > > > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some > > sanity > > > > > tests > > > > > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time on > > > > > releasing > > > > > >> Storm 2.0.0. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311 > > > > > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752 > > > > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947 > > > > > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen < > > > > > >> [email protected]>님이 > > > > > >> 작성: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail! > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <[email protected]>: > > > > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> -Taylor > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi devs, > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm > > > 2.0.0 and > > > > > >>> link > > > > > >>>>>> to epic issue. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 > > > > > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic) > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing > > some > > > > > >> pending > > > > > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for Travis > > CI > > > > > >> build, > > > > > >>> as > > > > > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at > > > least for > > > > > >>> me), I > > > > > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than > > > later, > > > > > and > > > > > >>> rely > > > > > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining > tasks > > > for > > > > > >>> Storm > > > > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT? > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
