Is 0.9.2 scheduled for release in the very near future?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > We have a CHANGELOG.md file: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-storm/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md > > > On Apr 25, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Suresh Srinivas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I would like STORM-295 to be picked up for the release. > > > > BTW how does Storm project maintain information on what changes are in a > > release. Is there anything similar to CHANGES.txt as maintained in some > of > > the projects? > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 7:57 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> This release has been baking for a while and a number of important > >> improvements and bug fixes have been merged into the master branch. > >> > >> There are a few dependency updates that are still pending: > >> > >> - STORM-265 (clojure) > >> - STORM-252 (curator) > >> - STORM-291 (http-client) > >> > >> Would committers be able to review the patches above and +1/-1 as > >> appropriate? > >> > >> Any other patches that we should include in this release? > >> > >> - Taylor > >> > >> On Mar 26, 2014, at 10:09 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> There are a number of email threads and JIRA issues regarding upgrading > >> various storm dependencies, so I’d like to enumerate them and discuss > them > >> in one thread. > >>> > >>> Here’s the list so far: > >>> > >>> 1. Kryo/Carbonite (STORM-263)[1] > >>> 2. Clojure (STORM-265) [2] > >>> 3. commons-io (STORM-258) [3] > >>> 4. curator (STORM-252) [4] > >>> 5. http-client [5] > >>> > >>> I am +1 for all of the above, with the exception of #2, which I am +0 > >> only because I personally haven’t had a chance to do any testing with > newer > >> versions of clojure. I’d be interested to hear if anyone has done any > >> testing with newer versions of clojure. > >>> > >>> I think we should at least consider a bump to clojure 1.5 since it > >> includes Bobby Evan’s patch that fixes error output getting swallowed > (this > >> manifests itself as the maven-clojure-plugin failing without any useful > >> information when there are certain AOT compilation issues — very > annoying). > >>> > >>> - Taylor > >>> > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-263 > >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-265 > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-258 > >>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-252 > >>> [5] > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/storm-user/201402.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > >>> > >>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 7:13 AM, Brian O'Neill <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Agreed. One of our guys got hung up on that just yesterday. > >>>> It isn’t hard to track down the assembly, but it might be worth making > >> it a bit easier. > >>>> > >>>> Also, I’d love to see STORM-263 included in the next release. It > >> seems like a quick win. > >>>> > >>>> -brian > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> Brian O'Neill > >>>> Chief Technology Officer > >>>> > >>>> Health Market Science > >>>> The Science of Better Results > >>>> 2700 Horizon Drive • King of Prussia, PA • 19406 > >>>> M: 215.588.6024 • @boneill42 • healthmarketscience.com > >>>> > >>>> This information transmitted in this email message is for the intended > >> recipient only and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. > If > >> you received this email in error and are not the intended recipient, or > the > >> person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, please > contact > >> the sender at the email above and delete this email and any attachments > and > >> destroy any copies thereof. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, > >> copying or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this > >> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is > >> strictly prohibited. > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Kang Xiao <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> hi guys > >>>>> > >>>>> How about adding a bin/build_release.sh (http://build_release.sh) > >> script in this 0.9.2-incubating release? > >>>>> > >>>>> Since some guys asked the question about building storm release > >> package more than once in the mail list. > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Best Regards! > >>>>> > >>>>> 肖康(Kang Xiao,<[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])>) > >>>>> Distributed Software Engineer > >>>>> > >>>>> 在 2014年3月25日 星期二，1:38，Suresh Srinivas 写道： > >>>>>> Taylor, I am not very clear on "Lazy consensus +2". By this > >> definition code > >>>>>> can committed with no +1 from a committer, right? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You may want to look at Hadoop bylaws - > >>>>>> https://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The code commits in Hadoop are consensus approval with minimum +1 > >> from an > >>>>>> active committer and no veto. This has worked well in my experience. > >> It may > >>>>>> be a good idea to also adapt minimum 3 +1s from active committers > for > >>>>>> merging feature branches. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:22 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected] > (mailto: > >> [email protected])> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> That brings up a good point that probably deserves a separate > thread. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We should establish by-laws soon. Specifically a commit/merge > policy. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For code changes, I've been operating under a "lazy consensus +2" > >> model: 2 > >>>>>>> committer +1 votes and no vetoes (-1). If a committer submits the > >> patch, > >>>>>>> that's an implicit +1. Unless it's a somewhat urgent fix, I've been > >> waiting > >>>>>>> for 3 binding votes and no vetoes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That's kind of a middle ground between the traditional code > >> modification > >>>>>>> rule and lazy consensus [1]. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When wearing my "release manager" hat, I've also interpreted "code > >> change" > >>>>>>> to mean "anything that alters the behavior of the software we > >> produce." In > >>>>>>> terms of the build/packaging I've been a little looser. For large > >> changes > >>>>>>> (e.g. The switch to maven), I've waited for 3 binding votes. For > some > >>>>>>> changes I've committed directly -- I don't think we need to have a > >> 3-day > >>>>>>> vote on updating the CHANGELOG, for example. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anyway, it's something to think about. Sorry for hijacking the > >> thread. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 (again ;) ) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Taylor > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Nathan Marz <[email protected] > (mailto: > >> [email protected])> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Let's get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-262 in > >> there. Just > >>>>>>>> one more vote needed by a committer. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Patrick Lucas <[email protected] > (mailto: > >> [email protected])> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> A fix STORM-120 would be greatly appreciated. It's making it > >> impossible > >>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> increase tasks/executors > 1 when there is a downstream shuffle > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> grouping. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why there haven't been more reports of problems with > >> it. > >>>>>>> Two > >>>>>>>>> possibilities I can think of are that we are using exclusively > >> shell > >>>>>>>>> components--perhaps there's a root-cause bug in those component > >>>>>>>>> classes--and > >>>>>>>>> that we are dealing with a high volume stream of large tuples. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (thousands / > >>>>>>>>> sec, KB in size) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, P. Taylor Goetz < > >> [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Never mind... just found it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:09 PM, P. Taylor Goetz < > [email protected](mailto: > >> [email protected])> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Derek do you have an idea for a fix? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Derek Dagit <[email protected] > (mailto: > >> [email protected])> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said above, this fix is the most important in my > opinion. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> STORM-259 (Random#nextInt) is new to me -- can't say whether > >> it's as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> important as STORM-187 or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, we found it recently, and I created it this morning > after > >>>>>>>>> reading > >>>>>>>>>> Taylor's mail. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> STORM-187 can be a problem with fewer than 30 retries > >> (likelihood > >>>>>>>>>> depends on configuration), but we will hit STORM-259 when > retries > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> exceeds > >>>>>>>>>> 30. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>> Derek > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/14, 14:18, Michael G. Noll wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On my side the most important change is, as you point out, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> STORM-187. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The primary reason is like Adam Lewis is pointing out because > >> it's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stability problem. The secondary aspect is that this issue > >> taints > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> new Netty backend, and at least IMHO the faster Storm could > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> confidently > >>>>>>>>>>>>> bury ZeroMQ the better. :-) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said above, this fix is the most important in my > opinion. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> STORM-259 (Random#nextInt) is new to me -- can't say whether > >> it's as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> important as STORM-187 or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Switching to my non-essential wishlist I'd also +1 STORM-252 > >>>>>>> (Upgrade > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator and thus ZooKeeper to 3.4.5). We have been running ZK > >> 3.4.5 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway for a couple of reasons, and it would be nice to have > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> official > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Storm support for the latest ZK version (ok, the recently > >> released > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ZK > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.4.6 is actually the latest but hey). Although I don't know > >> how > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confident we are that the code in STORM-252 actually works, > >> i.e. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> whether > >>>>>>>>>>>>> integrating STORM-252 into 0.9.2 on such short notice would > be > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> jumping > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the gun or a safe move. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, in terms of Storm/Kafka integration Kafka is in the same > >> boat: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's built against ZK 3.3.x, and LinkedIn recommends the use > >> of ZK > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 3.3.4 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the docs. There's an open ticket KAFKA-854 [1] that's > >> basically > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent of STORM-252, but I'm not sure how actively the > >> Kafka > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> team > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> working on that. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-854 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/20/2014 02:33 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get this discussion started, largely because the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "negative timeout" bug (STORM-187) really bothers me. I've not > >> seen it > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> the wild, but I've heard of a few cases where it was enough to > >> hinder > >>>>>>>>>> upgrading. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HEAD looks good to me at the moment, with the major > difference > >>>>>>> being > >>>>>>>>>> the zookeeper update and the patch mentioned above. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts on other PRs or patches to include? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Taylor > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Patrick Lucas > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz > >>>>>>>> http://nathanmarz.com > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> http://hortonworks.com/download/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > >>>>>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or > >> entity to > >>>>>> which it is addressed and may contain information that is > >> confidential, > >>>>>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the > >> reader > >>>>>> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby > >> notified that > >>>>>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > >>>>>> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > >>>>>> received this communication in error, please contact the sender > >> immediately > >>>>>> and delete it from your system. Thank You. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > http://hortonworks.com/download/ > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > to > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > immediately > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > >
