Re: [VOTE] Release 1.19.0, release candidate #2

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

+1 (non binding)

I quickly checked:
- signatures and checksums are OK
- ASF headers are present in all expected file
- No unexpected binaries files found in the source distribution
- Build OK on the tag

Thanks !
Regards
JB

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:00 AM Lincoln Lee  wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 1.19.0,
> as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>
> * JIRA release notes [1], and the pull request adding release note for
> users [2]
> * the official Apache source release and binary convenience releases to be
> deployed to dist.apache.org [3], which are signed with the key with
> fingerprint E57D30ABEE75CA06  [4],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [5],
> * source code tag "release-1.19.0-rc2" [6],
> * website pull request listing the new release and adding announcement blog
> post [7].
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority
> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522=12353282
> [2] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/24394
> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.19.0-rc2/
> [4] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS
> [5] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1709
> [6] https://github.com/apache/flink/releases/tag/release-1.19.0-rc2
> [7] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/721
>
>
> Best,
> Yun, Jing, Martijn and Lincoln

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

+1

Regards
JB

Le 16 mai 2018 à 20:09, à 20:09, Thomas Weise  a écrit:
>+1
>
>
>On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Stefan Richter
>> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> > Am 16.05.2018 um 12:40 schrieb Chesnay Schepler
>:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > during the discussion about how to better manage pull requests [1]
>the
>> topic of GitBox integration came up again.
>> >
>> > This seems like a good opportunity to restart this discussion that
>we
>> had about a year ago [2].
>> >
>> > * What is GitBox
>> >
>> >   Essentially, GitBox allow us to use GitHub features.
>> >   We can decide for ourselves which features we want enabled.
>> >
>> >   We could merge PRs directly on GitHub at the button of a click.
>> >   That said the merge functionality is fairly limited and would
>> >   require picture-perfect commits in the pull requests.
>> >   Commits can be squashed, but you cannot amend commits in any way,
>be
>> >   it fixing typos or changing the commit message. Realistically
>this
>> >   limits how much we can use this feature, and it may lead to a
>> >   decline in the quality of commit messages.
>> >
>> >   Labels can be useful for the management of PRs as (ready for
>review,
>> >   delayed for next release, waiting for changes). This is really
>what
>> >   I'm personally most interested in.
>> >
>> >   We've been using GitBox for flink-shaded for a while now and i
>> >   didn't run into any issue. AFAIK GitBox is also the default for
>new
>> >   projects.
>> >
>> > * What this means for committers:
>> >
>> >   The apache git remote URL will change, which will require all
>> >   committers to update their git setup.
>> >   This also implies that we may have to update the website build
>scripts.
>> >   The new URL would (probably) be
>> >   /https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/flink.git/.
>> >
>> >   To make use of GitHub features you have to link your GitHub and
>> >   Apache accounts. [3]
>> >   This also requires setting up two-factor authentication on
>GitHub.
>> >
>> >   Update the scm entry in the parent pom.xml.
>> >
>> > * What this means for contributors:
>> >
>> >   Nothing should change for contributors. Small changes (like
>typos)
>> >   may be merged more quickly, if the commit message is appropriate,
>as
>> >   it could be done directly through GitHub.
>> >
>> > [1] http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.
>> nabble.com/Closing-automatically-inactive-pull-requests-tt22248.html
>> > [2] http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.
>> nabble.com/DISCUSS-GitBox-td18027.html
>> > [3] https://gitbox.apache.org/setup/
>>
>>

Re: Using Slack for online discussions

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

+1

Regards
JB

On 03/29/2018 07:22 PM, Thomas Weise wrote:
> How does the community think about using ASF Slack for online discussions?
> 
> The Beam project started to use it recently and it seems to work quite well
> [1] [2].
> 
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1bee60193823a8411dcfad7a6de695ac1d779ae5d14f7b954ffa5961@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> [2]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b82871dc16b63a4e74cd6373405361dfbd75810073f98542ba82ed41@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: "Unable to find registrar for hdfs" on Flink cluster

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

By the way, this kind of question should go on the user mailing list IMHO.

Thanks
Regards
JB

On 08/29/2017 08:59 AM, P. Ramanjaneya Reddy wrote:

Hi All,

build jar file from the beam quickstart. while run the jar on Flinkcluster
got below error.?

anybody got this error?
Could you please help how to resolve this?

root1@master:~/NAI/Tools/flink-1.3.0$ *bin/flink run -c
org.apache.beam.examples.WordCount
/home/root1/NAI/Tools/word-count-beam/target/word-count-beam-bundled-0.1.jar
--runner=FlinkRunner
--filesToStage=/home/root1/NAI/Tools/word-count-beam/target/word-count-beam-bundled-0.1.jar
--inputFile=hdfs://master:9000/test/wordcount_input.txt
  --output=hdfs://master:9000/test/wordcount_output919*


This is the output I get:

Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unable to find registrar for
hdfs
at
org.apache.beam.sdk.io.FileSystems.getFileSystemInternal(FileSystems.java:447)
at org.apache.beam.sdk.io.FileSystems.matchNewResource(FileSystems.java:517)
at
org.apache.beam.sdk.io.FileBasedSink.convertToFileResourceIfPossible(FileBasedSink.java:204)
at org.apache.beam.sdk.io.TextIO$Write.to(TextIO.java:296)
at org.apache.beam.examples.WordCount.main(WordCount.java:182)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
at
org.apache.flink.client.program.PackagedProgram.callMainMethod(PackagedProgram.java:528)
... 13 more


Thanks & Regards,
Ramanji.



--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Flink 1.1.4 Released

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Great. Good job team !

Regards 
JB⁣​

On Dec 25, 2016, 11:04, at 11:04, Aljoscha Krettek  wrote:
>Very nice. Good work, team! 
>
>On Sat, Dec 24, 2016, 00:07 Fabian Hueske  wrote:
>
>> Thank you Ufuk for your work as release manager and everybody who
>> contributed!
>>
>> Cheers, Fabian
>>
>> 2016-12-23 16:40 GMT+01:00 Ufuk Celebi :
>>
>> > The Flink PMC is pleased to announce the availability of Flink
>1.1.4.
>> >
>> > The official release announcement:
>> > https://flink.apache.org/news/2016/12/21/release-1.1.4.html
>> >
>> > Release binaries:
>> > http://apache.lauf-forum.at/flink/flink-1.1.4
>> >
>> > Please update your Maven dependencies to the new 1.1.4 version and
>> > update your binaries.
>> >
>> > On behalf of the Flink PMC, I would like to thank everybody who
>> > contributed to the release.
>> >
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Releasing Flink 1.1.4

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

+1

Looking forward this release !

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 25, 2016, 14:43, at 14:43, Robert Metzger  wrote:
>+1 for a bugfix release soon.
>
>On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Stephan Ewen 
>wrote:
>
>> Thanks fort starting this Ufuk.
>>
>> I would like to add the following issues to 1.1.4:
>>
>> Build errors due to Storm dependencies *(fix pending)*
>> - [FLINK-4298] [storm compatibility] Add proper repository for
>Closure
>> dependencies.
>>
>> Stability on S3 considering eventual consistency *(fix pending)*
>> - [FLINK-4218] [checkpoints] Do not fail checkpoints when state
>size
>> cannot be determined
>>
>> Avoiding Zombie TaskManagers *(still needs to be done)*
>> - [FLINK-3347] [akka] TaskManager (or its ActorSystem) need to
>restart
>> in case they notice quarantine
>>
>> Adding a limit to the amount of data spilled during checkpoint
>alignments
>> *(fix
>> is work in progress)*
>> - [FLINK-4904] [checkpoints] Add a limit for how much data may be
>> spilled in checkpoint alignments
>>
>>
>> I can push the first two fixes to the 1.1.4 branch in a bit, the
>fourth one
>> later today.
>> The third one (akka) is still pending.
>>
>> Best,
>> Stephan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
>>
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > I would like to start the discussion for kicking off the next bug
>fix
>> > release, Flink 1.1.4. What do you think about aiming for a RC by
>end
>> > of this week?
>> >
>> > Users reported some instabilities/inconveniences that would be good
>to
>> fix.
>> >
>> > Personally, I would like to backport the following fixes:
>> >
>> > (1) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4619: Answer client
>if
>> > savepoint restore fails (Already merged for master, needs minimal
>> > adjustment for 1.1)
>> > (2) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4715: Safety net
>for
>> > stuck task cancellation (Already reviewed for master, waiting for
>> > tests to finish of backport)
>> > (3) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4510: Always create
>> > CheckpointCoordinator (Already merged for master, needs minimal
>> > adjustments for 1.1)
>> >
>> > Furthermore, I would like to address the following:
>> >
>> > (4) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4445: Add option to
>> > ignore unmatched state when restoring from savepoint
>> > (5) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4894: Don't block
>on
>> > buffer request after broadcast event
>> >
>> > Strictly speaking, the (4) is not a bug fix. But given that it
>would
>> > only add an optional flag to savepoint restoring and should have
>been
>> > addressed for 1.1.0 already, I would like to get it in.
>> >
>>