Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I've now started building the next release candidate. On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Robert Metzger wrote: > Hi Gyula, > > I'm trying to push Stefan R. to get the RocksDB fixes in asap. > > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Gyula Fóra wrote: > >> Hi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

Hi Gyula, I'm trying to push Stefan R. to get the RocksDB fixes in asap. On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Gyula Fóra wrote: > Hi All, > > Any updates on this? > > It would be nice to get this out soon, the Kafka bug is hurting our prod > jobs big time. > > Thanks, > Gyula

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

Hi All, Any updates on this? It would be nice to get this out soon, the Kafka bug is hurting our prod jobs big time. Thanks, Gyula On Wed, Apr 5, 2017, 15:27 Ufuk Celebi wrote: > @Stefan: What's the state with the RocksDB fixes? I would be +1 to do this. > > On Tue, Apr 4,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

@Stefan: What's the state with the RocksDB fixes? I would be +1 to do this. On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > Yes, aljoscha already opened one against master: > https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3670 > > On 04.04.2017 17:57, Ted Yu wrote: >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

Yes, aljoscha already opened one against master: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3670 On 04.04.2017 17:57, Ted Yu wrote: Should the commits be reverted from master branch as well ? On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: The commits around

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

Should the commits be reverted from master branch as well ? On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > The commits around FLINK-5808 have been reverted on release-1.2. > > > On 4. Apr 2017, at 12:16, Stefan Richter > wrote: > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

The commits around FLINK-5808 have been reverted on release-1.2. > On 4. Apr 2017, at 12:16, Stefan Richter wrote: > > I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2 that fixes a significant > performance problem with append operations. I think this should

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2 that fixes a significant performance problem with append operations. I think this should definitely be part of the 1.2.1 release because this is already blocking some users. What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing run,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

Would it be possible to merge also the PR to fix FLINK-6103 ( https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3598)? On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > We can merge the metric changes; I'll rebase the branch and merge them > within the next hours. > > On

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

We can merge the metric changes; I'll rebase the branch and merge them within the next hours. On 04.04.2017 11:57, Robert Metzger wrote: Thank you for opening a PR for this. Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / backports? Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

Thank you for opening a PR for this. Chesnay, do you need more reviews for the metrics changes / backports? Are there any other release blockers for 1.2.1, or are we good to go? On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > I created a PR for the revert:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3664 > On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen wrote: > > +1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for 1.2.2 > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

+1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for 1.2.2 On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas wrote: > +1 for 1 > > > On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann wrote: > > > > +1 for option 1) > > > > On Mon, Apr 3,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

+1 for 1 > On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann wrote: > > +1 for option 1) > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Fabian Hueske wrote: > >> +1 to option 1) >> >> 2017-04-03 16:57 GMT+02:00 Ted Yu : >> >>> Looks like #1 is

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

+1 for option 1) On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Fabian Hueske wrote: > +1 to option 1) > > 2017-04-03 16:57 GMT+02:00 Ted Yu : > > > Looks like #1 is better - 1.2.1 would be at least as stable as 1.2.0 > > > > Cheers > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:39

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

+1 to option 1) 2017-04-03 16:57 GMT+02:00 Ted Yu : > Looks like #1 is better - 1.2.1 would be at least as stable as 1.2.0 > > Cheers > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Aljoscha Krettek > wrote: > > > Just so we’re all on the same page. ;-) > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

Looks like #1 is better - 1.2.1 would be at least as stable as 1.2.0 Cheers On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > Just so we’re all on the same page. ;-) > > There was https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5808 which was a > bug that we initially

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

Just so we’re all on the same page. ;-) There was https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5808 which was a bug that we initially discovered in Flink 1.2 which was/is about missing verification for the correctness of the combination of parallelism and max-parallelism. Due to lacking test

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I don't know what is best to do, but I think releasing 1.2.1 with potentially more bugs than 1.2.0 is not a good option. I suspect a good workaround for FLINK-6188 is setting the parallelism manually for operators that can't cope with the default

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

You mean reverting the changes around FLINK-5808 [1]? This is what introduced the follow-up FLINK-6188 [2]. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5808 [2]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, at 19:10, Robert Metzger wrote: > I think reverting

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I think reverting FLINK-6188 for the 1.2 branch might be a good idea. FLINK-6188 introduced two new bugs, so undoing the FLINK-6188 fix will lead only to one known bug in 1.2.1, instead of an uncertain number of issues. So 1.2.1 is not going to be worse than 1.2.0 The fix will hopefully make it

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I merged the fix for FLINK-6044 to the release-1.2 and release-1.1 branch. 2017-03-31 15:02 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske : > We should also backport the fix for FLINK-6044 to Flink 1.2.1. > > I'll take care of that. > > 2017-03-30 18:50 GMT+02:00 Aljoscha Krettek

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

We should also backport the fix for FLINK-6044 to Flink 1.2.1. I'll take care of that. 2017-03-30 18:50 GMT+02:00 Aljoscha Krettek : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 turns out to be a bit > more involved, see my comments on the PR: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 turns out to be a bit more involved, see my comments on the PR: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616. As I said there, maybe we should revert the commits regarding parallelism/max-parallelism changes and release and then fix it later. On Wed,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I commented on FLINK-6214: I think it's working as intended, although we could fix the javadoc/doc. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, at 17:35, Timo Walther wrote: > A user reported that all tumbling and slinding window assigners contain > a pretty obvious bug about offsets. > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

A user reported that all tumbling and slinding window assigners contain a pretty obvious bug about offsets. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6214 I think we should also fix this for 1.2.1. What do you think? Regards, Timo Am 29/03/17 um 11:30 schrieb Robert Metzger: Hi Haohui, I

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

Hi Haohui, I agree that we should fix the parallelism issue. Otherwise, the 1.2.1 release would introduce a new bug. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Haohui Mai wrote: > -1 (non-binding) > > We recently found out that all jobs submitted via UI will have a > parallelism of

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

-1 (non-binding) We recently found out that all jobs submitted via UI will have a parallelism of 1, potentially due to FLINK-5808. Filed FLINK-6209 to track it. ~Haohui On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM Chesnay Schepler wrote: > If possible I would like to include

[CANCEL][VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I'll cancel the vote. Once the fixes are in, I'll create a new RC. On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Chesnay Schepler wrote: > If possible I would like to include FLINK-6183 & FLINK-6184 as well. > > They fix 2 metric-related issues that could arise when a Task is cancelled

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

If possible I would like to include FLINK-6183 & FLINK-6184 as well. They fix 2 metric-related issues that could arise when a Task is cancelled very early. (like, right away) FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was never closed FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I opened a PR for FLINK-6188: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616 This improves the previously very sparse test coverage for timestamp/watermark assigners and fixes the bug. > On 25 Mar 2017, at 10:22, Ufuk Celebi wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I agree with Aljoscha. -1 because of FLINK-6188 On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > I filed this issue, which was observed by a user: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 > > I think that’s blocking for 1.2.1. > >> On 24 Mar 2017, at

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

I filed this issue, which was observed by a user: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 I think that’s blocking for 1.2.1. > On 24 Mar 2017, at 18:57, Ufuk Celebi wrote: > > RC1 doesn't contain Stefan's backport for the Asynchronous snapshots > for heap-based keyed

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

RC1 doesn't contain Stefan's backport for the Asynchronous snapshots for heap-based keyed state that has been merged. Should we create RC2 with that fix since the voting period only starts on Monday? I think it would only mean rerunning the scripts on your side, right? – Ufuk On Fri, Mar 24,

[VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

Dear Flink community, Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Flink version 1.2 .1. The commit to be voted on: *732e55bd* (*http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/flink/commit/732e55bd *) Branch: release-1.2.1-rc1