I just reviewed the patch and it looks good to me. I’m going to cancel the current release vote so the fix for STORM-342 can be included. It’s more work for me, but I think it will make for a stronger 0.9.2 release.
- Taylor On Jun 12, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > I think some of that deals with the fact that the error only occurs on worker > startup, but it presents the possibility, although extremely rare, that a > tuple tree may be marked as fully processed by an acker when it has not been. > It also violates one of storms guarantees. I would rather wait, but I am > willing to let 0.9.2 out with a -0 because I can see an argument for > STORM-342 just being critical. For me personally I plan to deploy a new > release with STORM–342 to the clusters I manage ASAP. > > - Bobby > > From: "P. Taylor Goetz" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Reply-To: > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Thursday, June 12, 2014 at 1:56 PM > To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: 0.9.2-incubating Release Pending > > I agree. The fact that this was submitted as a blocker slipped past me. > > In my opinion blockers are serious “stop the bus — this software is > fundamentally broken” issues. This bug has presumably been present in every > release since the move to disruptor way back in 0.8.0, and only > discovered/reported now (excellent catch Sean). So it doesn’t feel like a > blocker. > > That being said, I think it’s a very important issue to get resolved. I’m > willing to cancel the current 0.9.2 release vote (there aren’t any votes > yet), review the patch, and re-release if that’s how we want to proceed. > > What do you think? > > - Taylor > > On Jun 12, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Bobby Evans > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I don¹t like the idea of releasing code with a known blocker in it. > Either 0.9.2 needs STORM-342 or it is not a blocker. I don¹t see how we > can have it both ways. > > - Bobby > > On 6/11/14, 2:47 AM, "Sean Zhong" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > It make sense, thanks! > > Sean > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:25 AM, P. Taylor Goetz > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > Agreed. But the patch needs to be reviewed and signed off. > > If it is genuinely reproducible, and fixed with the patch, then I'm not > opposed to doing a rapid follow-on release of 0.9.3-incubating. > > But for now, there are a lot of important patches in 0.9.2-incubating > (yours included) that the community has been waiting a long time for. I > would like to keep the pace of releasing at least quarterly, if not more > often. > > -Taylor > > > > On Jun 10, 2014, at 8:50 PM, Sean Zhong > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > How about STORM-342? > STORM-342: Message loss, executor hang, or message disorder due to > contention in Disruptor queue under multi-thread mode > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-342? > > It looks like a big issue to me. > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:58 AM, P. Taylor Goetz > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > Unfortunately RAT turned up a bunch of licensing issues, so there > will > be > a delay. I expect to have a release cut and ready for vote sometime > tomorrow. > > - Taylor > > On Jun 9, 2014, at 6:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > FYI... I will cut a release candidate tomorrow. > > -Taylor > > On May 29, 2014, at 3:01 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > I¹m planning on cutting a release candidate for 0.9.2 in the next > day > or so. I¹d like to ask committers to review outstanding contributions > that > I¹d like to see in the release. > > For now I only see one remaining pull request that I¹d like to > include: > > STORM-205 (Rest API for Storm UI) > > I¹m also open to suggestions for additional JIRAs to include. > > Thanks in advance, > > - Taylor >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
