I think we are really close on this and I would love to see us get an RC out ASAP.
We are still missing some things that Stig called out. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719 has a build issue, not sure if we need to make an alternative patch or not. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 has a newer alternative patch https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2836 please take a look. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 has some merge conflicts currently, but everyone please take a chance to review it. Thanks, Bobby On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:57 AM Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > I have sought the name of client artifact from some of streaming > frameworks. Please refer below: > > Spark: spark-core > Kafka: kafka-clients > Flink: flink-clients > Heron: heron-api > > Based on divergence, I don't see the reason "storm-core" is the only name > which avoid confusion. Actually, if my understanding is right, we need to > let end users including "storm-server" when running local cluster, then > "storm-core" vs "storm-server" would give real confusion. I guess we > already discussed about the naming, and given that we don't rename it we > are OK with renamed artifacts. > > 2018년 9월 14일 (금) 오후 4:07, Roshan Naik <[email protected]>님이 > 작성: > > > Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon. > > I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as it > > seems like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy > > savings. > > One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is... to > fix > > the naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it > should > > have been really called storm-core or something like that... but > > unfortunately we already have another jar with that name. Retaining the > > 'client' name for this new jar would be confusing and give wrong > > impressions to users and any new devs IMO. > > -roshan > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC. > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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) > > >> > > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >
