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

[Robert Metzger]

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 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, 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:
>> > >>
>> > >> Should the commits be reverted from master branch as well ?
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>> aljos...@apache.org>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> The commits around FLINK-5808 have been reverted on release-1.2.
>> > >>>
>> >  On 4. Apr 2017, at 12:16, Stefan Richter <
>> s.rich...@data-artisans.com
>> > >
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 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 release because this is already blocking some
>> > users.
>> > >>> What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing
>> > run,
>> > >>> e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger <
>> rmetz...@apache.org>:
>> > >
>> > > 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 <
>> > aljos...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> 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 <
>> > >>
>> > >> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> >  +1 for 1
>> > 
>> > > On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <
>> trohrm...@apache.org>
>> > >>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > +1 for option 1)
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Fabian Hueske <
>> fhue...@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> 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 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>> > >>
>> > >> aljos...@apache.org>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 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 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 coverage this
>> introduced
>> >  two
>> > >>
>> > >> more
>> > >>>
>> > >>> bugs:
>> > 
>> >  - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
>> >  setParallelism() methods can't cope with default
>> parallelism
>> >  - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
>> >  StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
>> > 
>> >  IMHO, the options are:
>> >  1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the
>> release-1.2
>> > >>>
>> > >>> branch
>> > >>
>> > >> and
>> > 
>> >  live with the bug still being present
>> >  2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing
>> > some
>> > >>>
>> > >>> problems
>> > 
>> >  that have existed for a long time with 

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

[Robert Metzger]

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
>
> 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, 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:
> > >>
> > >> 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 <
> s.rich...@data-artisans.com
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> 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 release because this is already blocking some
> > users.
> > >>> What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing
> > run,
> > >>> e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state.
> > 
> > 
> > > Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger  >:
> > >
> > > 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 <
> > aljos...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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 <
> > >>
> > >> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  +1 for 1
> > 
> > > On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <
> trohrm...@apache.org>
> > >>
> > >> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 for option 1)
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Fabian Hueske <
> fhue...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 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 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > >>
> > >> aljos...@apache.org>
> > >>>
> > >>> 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 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 coverage this
> introduced
> >  two
> > >>
> > >> more
> > >>>
> > >>> bugs:
> > 
> >  - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
> >  setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
> >  - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
> >  StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
> > 
> >  IMHO, the options are:
> >  1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2
> > >>>
> > >>> branch
> > >>
> > >> and
> > 
> >  live with the bug still being present
> >  2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing
> > some
> > >>>
> > >>> problems
> > 
> >  that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism
> is
> > >>>
> > >>> set in
> > 
> >  streaming programs
> > 
> >  Best,
> >  Aljoscha
> > 
> > > On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger <
> > rmetz...@apache.org>
> > >>
> > >> wrote:
> > 

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

[Gyula Fóra]

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, 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:
> >>
> >> 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 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.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state.
> 
> 
> > Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger :
> >
> > 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 <
> aljos...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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 <
> >>
> >> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  +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 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 <
> >>
> >> aljos...@apache.org>
> >>>
> >>> 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 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 coverage this introduced
>  two
> >>
> >> more
> >>>
> >>> bugs:
> 
>  - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
>  setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
>  - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
>  StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
> 
>  IMHO, the options are:
>  1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2
> >>>
> >>> branch
> >>
> >> and
> 
>  live with the bug still being present
>  2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing
> some
> >>>
> >>> problems
> 
>  that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is
> >>>
> >>> set in
> 
>  streaming programs
> 
>  Best,
>  Aljoscha
> 
> > On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger <
> rmetz...@apache.org>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >> -1
> 

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

[Ufuk Celebi]

@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:
>>
>> 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 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.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state.


> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger :
>
> 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/
>>>
>>> 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 <
>>
>> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +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 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 <
>>
>> aljos...@apache.org>
>>>
>>> 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 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 coverage this introduced
 two
>>
>> more
>>>
>>> bugs:

 - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
 setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
 - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
 StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1

 IMHO, the options are:
 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2
>>>
>>> branch
>>
>> and

 live with the bug still being present
 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
>>>
>>> problems

 that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is
>>>
>>> set in

 streaming programs

 Best,
 Aljoscha

> On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 
>>
>> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>> -1
>
> parallelism.
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>>
>> aljos...@apache.org
>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>

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

[Chesnay Schepler]

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 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 release because this is already blocking some users.
What is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing run,
e.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state.



Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger :

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/

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 <

k.klou...@data-artisans.com>

wrote:


+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 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 <

aljos...@apache.org>

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 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 coverage this introduced two

more

bugs:

- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1

IMHO, the options are:
1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2

branch

and

live with the bug still being present
2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some

problems

that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is

set in

streaming programs

Best,
Aljoscha


On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 

wrote:

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

-1

parallelism.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <

aljos...@apache.org

wrote:


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 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 into 1.2.2 then.

Any other thoughts on this?




On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <

fhue...@gmail.com>

wrote:

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 

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

[Ted Yu]

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 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.g. with some misbehaved job that has large state.
> >
> >
> >> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger :
> >>
> >> 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/
> 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 <
> >>> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > +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 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 <
> >>> aljos...@apache.org>
>  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 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 coverage this introduced two
> >>> more
>  bugs:
> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
> > setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
> > StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
> >
> > IMHO, the options are:
> > 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2
> branch
> >>> and
> > live with the bug still being present
> > 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
>  problems
> > that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is
> set in
> > streaming programs
> >
> > Best,
> > Aljoscha
> >
> >> On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >>> -1
> >> parallelism.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> >>> aljos...@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
> 
>  Any other thoughts on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <
> >>> fhue...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > I merged the fix for FLINK-6044 

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

[Aljoscha Krettek]

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 release because this is already blocking some users. What 
> is missing is uploading the jar to maven central and a testing run, e.g. with 
> some misbehaved job that has large state.
> 
> 
>> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger :
>> 
>> 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/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 <
>>> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
 wrote:
 
> +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 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 <
>>> aljos...@apache.org>
 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 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 coverage this introduced two
>>> more
 bugs:
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
> setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
> StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
> 
> IMHO, the options are:
> 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch
>>> and
> live with the bug still being present
> 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
 problems
> that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
> streaming programs
> 
> Best,
> Aljoscha
> 
>> On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>>> -1
>> parallelism.
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>>> aljos...@apache.org
> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
 
 Any other thoughts on this?
 
 
 
 
 On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <
>>> fhue...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
 
> 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)

[Stefan Richter]

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.g. with some 
misbehaved job that has large state.


> Am 04.04.2017 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Metzger :
> 
> 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/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 <
>> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 +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 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 <
>> aljos...@apache.org>
>>> 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 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 coverage this introduced two
>> more
>>> bugs:
 - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
 setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
 - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
 StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
 
 IMHO, the options are:
 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch
>> and
 live with the bug still being present
 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
>>> problems
 that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
 streaming programs
 
 Best,
 Aljoscha
 
> On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 
>> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> -1
> parallelism.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>> aljos...@apache.org
 
> wrote:
> 
>> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
>>> 
>>> Any other thoughts on this?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <
>> fhue...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
 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 <
>> aljos...@apache.org
>>> :
> 
>> 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.

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

[Flavio Pompermaier]

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 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, 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/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 <

>>> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
>>>
 wrote:

 +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 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 <

>>> aljos...@apache.org>
>>>
 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 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 coverage this introduced two
>
 more
>>>
 bugs:

> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
> setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
> StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
>
> IMHO, the options are:
> 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch
>
 and
>>>
 live with the bug still being present
> 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
>
 problems

> that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set
> in
> streaming programs
>
> Best,
> Aljoscha
>
> On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 
>>
> wrote:
>>>
 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
>>
> -1
>>>
 parallelism.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>>
> aljos...@apache.org
>>>
 wrote:
>>
>> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.

 Any other thoughts on this?




 On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <

>>> fhue...@gmail.com>
>>>
 wrote:
>>>
 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 

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

[Chesnay Schepler]

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, 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/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 <

k.klou...@data-artisans.com>

wrote:


+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 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 <

aljos...@apache.org>

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 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 coverage this introduced two

more

bugs:

- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1

IMHO, the options are:
1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch

and

live with the bug still being present
2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some

problems

that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
streaming programs

Best,
Aljoscha


On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 

wrote:

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

-1

parallelism.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <

aljos...@apache.org

wrote:


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 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 into 1.2.2 then.

Any other thoughts on this?




On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <

fhue...@gmail.com>

wrote:

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 <

aljos...@apache.org

:

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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:

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.

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 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 <

ricet...@gmail.com>

wrote:

-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 <

ches...@apache.org>

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 very early. (like, right away)

FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup

was

never closed

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

[Robert Metzger]

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/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 <
> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +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 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 <
> aljos...@apache.org>
> > 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 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 coverage this introduced two
> more
> > bugs:
> >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
> >> setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
> >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
> >> StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
> >>
> >> IMHO, the options are:
> >> 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch
>  and
> >> live with the bug still being present
> >> 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
> > problems
> >> that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
> >> streaming programs
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Aljoscha
> >>
> >>> On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 
>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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
>  -1
> >>> parallelism.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>  aljos...@apache.org
> >>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <
> fhue...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> >
> >> 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 <
> aljos...@apache.org
> > :
> >>>
>  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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > 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 

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

[Aljoscha Krettek]

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 
> wrote:
> 
>> +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 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 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 coverage this introduced two more
> bugs:
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
>> setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
>> StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
>> 
>> IMHO, the options are:
>> 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch
 and
>> live with the bug still being present
>> 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
> problems
>> that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
>> streaming programs
>> 
>> Best,
>> Aljoscha
>> 
>>> On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 
 wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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
 -1
>>> parallelism.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
 aljos...@apache.org
>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
> 
> Any other thoughts on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske 
 wrote:
> 
>> 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  :
>>> 
 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> 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.
>> 
>> 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:

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

[Stephan Ewen]

+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, 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 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 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 coverage this introduced two more
> >>> bugs:
>   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
>  setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
>   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
>  StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
> 
>  IMHO, the options are:
>  1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch
> >> and
>  live with the bug still being present
>  2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
> >>> problems
>  that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
>  streaming programs
> 
>  Best,
>  Aljoscha
> 
> > On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 
> >> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >> -1
> > parallelism.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> >> aljos...@apache.org
> 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
> >>>
> >>> Any other thoughts on this?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
>  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  >>> :
> >
> >> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> >>> 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.
> 
>  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 agree that we should fix the parallelism issue. Otherwise,
> >> the
> >> 1.2.1
> > release would introduce a new bug.
> >
> 

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

[Kostas Kloudas]

+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 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 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 coverage this introduced two more
>>> bugs:
  - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
 setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
  - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
 StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
 
 IMHO, the options are:
 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch
>> and
 live with the bug still being present
 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
>>> problems
 that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
 streaming programs
 
 Best,
 Aljoscha
 
> On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 
>> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> -1
> parallelism.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>> aljos...@apache.org
 
> wrote:
> 
>> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
>>> 
>>> Any other thoughts on this?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 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 >> :
> 
>> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>> 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.
 
 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 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 <
>> ricet...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
> 
>> -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.
>> 

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

[Till Rohrmann]

+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 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 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 coverage this introduced two more
> > bugs:
> > >   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
> > > setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
> > >   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
> > > StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
> > >
> > > IMHO, the options are:
> > >  1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch
> and
> > > live with the bug still being present
> > >  2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
> > problems
> > > that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
> > > streaming programs
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Aljoscha
> > >
> > > > On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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
> -1
> > > > parallelism.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> aljos...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Any other thoughts on this?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  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  >:
> > > >
> > > >> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > >>> 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.
> > > 
> > >  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 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 <
> > > >> ricet...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> -1 (non-binding)
> > > >>
> > > >> We recently found out that all jobs submitted via UI will
> > > >> have a
> > > >> parallelism of 1, potentially due to FLINK-5808.
> > > 

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

[Fabian Hueske]

+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. ;-)
> >
> > 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 coverage this introduced two more
> bugs:
> >   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
> > setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
> >   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
> > StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
> >
> > IMHO, the options are:
> >  1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch and
> > live with the bug still being present
> >  2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some
> problems
> > that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
> > streaming programs
> >
> > Best,
> > Aljoscha
> >
> > > On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger  wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 -1
> > > parallelism.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
> > >>>
> > >>> Any other thoughts on this?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  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 :
> > >
> > >> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > >>> 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.
> > 
> >  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 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 <
> > >> ricet...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >
> > >> -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 <
> > >> ches...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> If possible I would like to include FLINK-6183 & FLINK-6184
> > >> as
> > >> well.
> > >>>
> > >>> 

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

[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. ;-)
>
> 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 coverage this introduced two more bugs:
>   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some
> setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism
>   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209:
> StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1
>
> IMHO, the options are:
>  1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch and
> live with the bug still being present
>  2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some problems
> that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in
> streaming programs
>
> Best,
> Aljoscha
>
> > On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger  wrote:
> >
> > 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 -1
> > parallelism.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
> >>>
> >>> Any other thoughts on this?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
>  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 :
> >
> >> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> >>> 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.
> 
>  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 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 <
> >> ricet...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> -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 <
> >> ches...@apache.org>
> >> 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 very early. (like, right away)
> >>>
> >>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was
> >> never closed
> >>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer
> >> metrics
> >>>
> >>> PR 

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

[Aljoscha Krettek]

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 coverage this introduced two more bugs:
  - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some setParallelism() 
methods can't cope with default parallelism
  - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209: StreamPlanEnvironment 
always has a parallelism of 1

IMHO, the options are:
 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch and live 
with the bug still being present 
 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some problems that 
have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in streaming 
programs

Best,
Aljoscha

> On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger  wrote:
> 
> 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 -1
> parallelism.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek 
> wrote:
> 
>> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
>>> 
>>> Any other thoughts on this?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 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 :
> 
>> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>>> 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.
 
 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 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 <
>> ricet...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
> 
>> -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 <
>> ches...@apache.org>
>> 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 very early. (like, right away)
>>> 
>>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was
>> never closed
>>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer
>> metrics
>>> 
>>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
>>> 
>>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
 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 

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

[Robert Metzger]

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 -1
parallelism.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek 
wrote:

> 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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
> >
> > Any other thoughts on this?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 :
> > > >
> > > >> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > >> > 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.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 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 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 <
> ricet...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> -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 <
> > > >> ches...@apache.org>
> > > >> > > >> 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 very early. (like, right away)
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was
> > > >> never closed
> > > >> > > >>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer
> metrics
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > >> > >  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:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I agree with Aljoscha.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > >> > > >> aljos...@apache.org>
> > > >> > > >>> 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi 
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> RC1 

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

[Aljoscha Krettek]

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 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 into 1.2.2 then.
> 
> Any other thoughts on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske  wrote:
> 
> > 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 :
> > >
> > >> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > >> > 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.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 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 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 1, potentially due to FLINK-5808.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Filed FLINK-6209 to track it.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> ~Haohui
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM Chesnay Schepler <
> > >> ches...@apache.org>
> > >> > > >> 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 very early. (like, right away)
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was
> > >> never closed
> > >> > > >>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer metrics
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > >> > >  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:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I agree with Aljoscha.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > >> > > >> aljos...@apache.org>
> > >> > > >>> 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi 
> > wrote:
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> 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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger <
> > >> > > >> rmetz...@apache.org>
> > >> > > >>> wrote:
> > >> > >  Dear Flink community,
> > >> > > 
> > >> > > 

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

[Robert Metzger]

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 into 1.2.2 then.

Any other thoughts on this?




On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske  wrote:

> 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 :
> >
> >> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >> > >
> >> > > 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 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 1, potentially due to FLINK-5808.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Filed FLINK-6209 to track it.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> ~Haohui
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM Chesnay Schepler <
> >> ches...@apache.org>
> >> > > >> 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 very early. (like, right away)
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was
> >> never closed
> >> > > >>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer metrics
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> >> > >  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:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I agree with Aljoscha.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -1 because of FLINK-6188
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> >> > > >> aljos...@apache.org>
> >> > > >>> 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi 
> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> 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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger <
> >> > > >> rmetz...@apache.org>
> >> > > >>> wrote:
> >> > >  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
> >> > >   repos/asf/flink/commit/732e55b
> >> d>*)
> >> > > 
> >> > >  Branch:
> >> > >  release-1.2.1-rc1
> >> > > 
> >> > >  The release 

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

[Fabian Hueske]

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 :
>
>> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>> > 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.
>> > >
>> > > 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 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 1, potentially due to FLINK-5808.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Filed FLINK-6209 to track it.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> ~Haohui
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM Chesnay Schepler <
>> ches...@apache.org>
>> > > >> 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 very early. (like, right away)
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was
>> never closed
>> > > >>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer metrics
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>> > >  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:
>> > > >
>> > > > I agree with Aljoscha.
>> > > >
>> > > > -1 because of FLINK-6188
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
>> > > >> aljos...@apache.org>
>> > > >>> 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> 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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger <
>> > > >> rmetz...@apache.org>
>> > > >>> wrote:
>> > >  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
>> > >  > d>*)
>> > > 
>> > >  Branch:
>> > >  release-1.2.1-rc1
>> > > 
>> > >  The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
>> > >  *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
>> > >  *
>> > > 
>> > >  The release artifacts are signed with the key with
>> fingerprint
>> > > >>> D9839159:
>> > >  http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
>> > > 
>> > >  The staging repository for this release can be found at:
>> > > 
>> > > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>> flink-1116
>> > >  
>> -
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > >  The 

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

[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 :

> 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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> > > 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 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 1, potentially due to FLINK-5808.
> > > >>
> > > >> Filed FLINK-6209 to track it.
> > > >>
> > > >> ~Haohui
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM Chesnay Schepler <
> ches...@apache.org>
> > > >> 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 very early. (like, right away)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was never
> closed
> > > >>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer metrics
> > > >>>
> > > >>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > >  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:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Aljoscha.
> > > >
> > > > -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > >> aljos...@apache.org>
> > > >>> 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger <
> > > >> rmetz...@apache.org>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > >  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
> > > 
> > >  The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
> > >  *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
> > >  *
> > > 
> > >  The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint
> > > >>> D9839159:
> > >  http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
> > > 
> > >  The staging repository for this release can be found at:
> > > 
> > > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapacheflink-1116
> > >  -
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
> > >  [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...
> > > >>>
> > >
>

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

[Aljoscha Krettek]

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, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> 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.
> > 
> > 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 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 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 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 the buffer metrics
> > >>>
> > >>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
> > >>>
> > >>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> >  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:
> > >
> > > I agree with Aljoscha.
> > >
> > > -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> > >> aljos...@apache.org>
> > >>> 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger <
> > >> rmetz...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> >  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
> > 
> >  The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
> >  *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
> >  *
> > 
> >  The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint
> > >>> D9839159:
> >  http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
> > 
> >  The staging repository for this release can be found at:
> > 
> > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116
> >  -
> > 
> > 
> >  The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
> > 
> > 
> >  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
> >  [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...
> > >>>
> > 

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

[Aljoscha Krettek]

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.
> 
> 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 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 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 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 the buffer metrics
> >>>
> >>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
> >>>
> >>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>  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:
> >
> > I agree with Aljoscha.
> >
> > -1 because of FLINK-6188
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> >> aljos...@apache.org>
> >>> 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger <
> >> rmetz...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
>  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
> 
>  The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
>  *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
>  *
> 
>  The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint
> >>> D9839159:
>  http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
> 
>  The staging repository for this release can be found at:
> 
> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116
>  -
> 
> 
>  The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
> 
> 
>  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
>  [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...
> >>>
> 

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

[Timo Walther]

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 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 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 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 the buffer metrics

PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611

On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:

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:

I agree with Aljoscha.

-1 because of FLINK-6188


On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <

aljos...@apache.org>

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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:

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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger <

rmetz...@apache.org>

wrote:

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

The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
*http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
*

The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint

D9839159:

http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS

The staging repository for this release can be found at:


https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116

-


The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.


[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
[ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...

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

[Robert Metzger]

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 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 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 the buffer metrics
> >
> > PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
> >
> > On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > 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:
> > >>
> > >> I agree with Aljoscha.
> > >>
> > >> -1 because of FLINK-6188
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <
> aljos...@apache.org>
> > 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
> > 
> >  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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger <
> rmetz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> > > The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
> > > *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
> > > *
> > >
> > > The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint
> > D9839159:
> > > http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
> > >
> > > The staging repository for this release can be found at:
> > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > >
> > > The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
> > >
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
> > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...
> > >
> >
> >
>

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

[Haohui Mai]

-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 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 the buffer metrics
>
> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
>
> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > 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:
> >>
> >> 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
> 
>  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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger 
> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
> > *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
> > *
> >
> > The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint
> D9839159:
> > http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
> >
> > The staging repository for this release can be found at:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116
> >
> > -
> >
> >
> > The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
> >
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...
> >
>
>

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

[Robert Metzger]

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
> very early. (like, right away)
>
> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was never closed
> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer metrics
>
> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611
>
>
> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>
>> I opened a PR for FLINK-6188: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616 <
>> 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:
>>>
>>> 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
>
> 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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger 
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
>> *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
>> *
>>
>> The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint
>> D9839159:
>> http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
>>
>> The staging repository for this release can be found at:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache
>> flink-1116
>>
>> -
>>
>>
>> The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
>>
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...
>>
>
>>
>

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

[Chesnay Schepler]

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 the buffer metrics

PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611

On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:

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:

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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:

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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger  wrote:

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

The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
*http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
*

The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint D9839159:
http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS

The staging repository for this release can be found at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116

-


The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.


[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
[ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...

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

[Aljoscha Krettek]

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:
> 
> 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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger  wrote:
 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
 
 The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
 *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
 *
 
 The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint D9839159:
 http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
 
 The staging repository for this release can be found at:
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116
 
 -
 
 
 The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
 
 
 [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
 [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...
>> 

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

[Ufuk Celebi]

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 18:57, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
>>
>> 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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger  wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>> The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
>>> *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
>>> *
>>>
>>> The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint D9839159:
>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
>>>
>>> The staging repository for this release can be found at:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>>
>>> The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
>>>
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...
>

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

[Aljoscha Krettek]

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 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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger  wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
>> *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
>> *
>> 
>> The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint D9839159:
>> http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
>> 
>> The staging repository for this release can be found at:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116
>> 
>> -
>> 
>> 
>> The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
>> 
>> 
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...

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

[Ufuk Celebi]

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, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger  wrote:
> 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
>
> The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
> *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
> *
>
> The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint D9839159:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS
>
> The staging repository for this release can be found at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116
>
> -
>
>
> The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.
>
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...

[VOTE] Release Apache Flink 1.2.1 (RC1)

[Robert Metzger]

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

The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at:
*http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/
*

The release artifacts are signed with the key with fingerprint D9839159:
http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS

The staging repository for this release can be found at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1116

-


The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET.


[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1
[ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ...