radu created FLINK-6260:
---
Summary: Distinct Aggregates for Group By Windows
Key: FLINK-6260
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6260
Project: Flink
Issue Type: New Feature
Compon
Hi guys,
Based on the discussion about time management in
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3641 , does it make sense to use nanoTime
for procTime semantic aggregation processing? This way we will not have the
possibility of events falling in the same "millisecond" processing bucket and
kee
Hi,
I think you would mainly lose on performance, since Beam adds an additional
layer of abstraction and has some requirements from Runners that slow things
down compared to running natively on Flink.
I think feature wise, the only thing that you will lose is support for
Iterations/feedback edg
Fabian Hueske created FLINK-6261:
Summary: Add support for TUMBLE, HOP, SESSION to batch SQL
Key: FLINK-6261
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6261
Project: Flink
Issue Type: S
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: https://github.com/apache/f
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,
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 04.04.2017 11:57, Robert
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, e
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 definitely be
> part of the 1.2.1 re
Gyula Fora created FLINK-6262:
-
Summary: UnknownTopicOrPartitionException Kafka consumer error on
broker restart/failure
Key: FLINK-6262
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6262
Project: Flin
Gyula Fora created FLINK-6263:
-
Summary: Leader error in Kafka producer on leader change (broker
restart/failrue)
Key: FLINK-6263
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6263
Project: Flink
Gyula Fora created FLINK-6264:
-
Summary: Kafka consumer fails if can't find leader for partition
Key: FLINK-6264
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6264
Project: Flink
Issue Type: B
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:
> >
> > I have created a custom build of RocksDB 4.11.2
Kostas Kloudas created FLINK-6265:
-
Summary: Fix consecutive() for times() pattern.
Key: FLINK-6265
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6265
Project: Flink
Issue Type: Bug
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 FLINK-5808 have been reverted
Thanks Aljoscha,How sever of performance difference are we talking about here?
examples of "Iterations/feedback edges" and how they get applied?Thanks so much
Aljoscha.
From: Aljoscha Krettek
To: dev@flink.apache.org; amir bahmanyari
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 1:59 AM
Subject: Re:
It’s glad to restart check style discuss.
I’m agree with Stephan’s strategy.
For the ongoing partial pull request and companies’ fork, need to be rewrite
following new style rule. That must be finished themselves.
We can discuss the check style rule detail one by one(checkstyle.xml,
scalastyl
17 matches
Mail list logo