Re: Recording - Storm & Kafka Meetup on April 20th 2017

Hi Aditya, Thanks for your interest. We entatively planning one in June 1st week. If you haven't already please register here https://www.meetup.com/Apache-Storm-Apache-Kafka/ . I'll keep the Storm lists updated once we finalize the date & location. Thanks, Harsha On Mon, Apr 24,

Storm Meetup in BayArea on April 20th

Hi All, We are organizing a Storm Meetup at Hortonworks HQ in Santa Clara,CA. If you are interested in attending please RSVP here https://www.meetup.com/Apache-Storm-Apache-Kafka/events/238975416/ Thanks, Harsha

Re: [DISCUSS] Move non-connectors modules to out of external

we need to make the changes and cut another RC. > I'm fine with that, but want to make sure we have consensus before going > down that road. > > -Taylor > > > On Mar 24, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Harsha Chintalapani <st...@harsha.io> > wrote: > > > > Agree on ch

Re: [DISCUSS] Move non-connectors modules to out of external

; On Mar 24, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Priyank Shah <ps...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 to moving non-conncectors to top level. I think we should keep > stom-kafka-monitor under external or connectors(after renaming). > >>>> > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Move non-connectors modules to out of external

+1 on moving non-connectors to top-level like sql and storm-perf. Regarding storm-kafka-monitor we can move this into "util" folder or keep in the external. -Harsha On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:23 AM Satish Duggana wrote: > storm-kafka-monitor is not a connector by itself

Re: [DISCUSS] Storm 2.0 Roadmap

Storm 2.0 migration to java in itself is a big win and would attract wider community and adoption. So my vote would be to resolve the first 3 items to get a release out. All the other featured mentioned are great to have but shouldn't be blockers for 2.0 release. -Harsha On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC3)

user choses > UNCOMITTED_LATEST first poll strategy, no data gets polled at all. > > > > Thanks, > > Hugo > > > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Harsha Chintalapani <st...@harsha.io > <mailto:st...@harsha.io>> wrote: > > > > +1 for documentin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.1.0 (RC3)

+1 for documenting and releasing. -Harsha On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:04 AM Jungtaek Lim wrote: > +1 to the latter. > > I'm in favor of documenting the change to release note, and also docs so > that website can be reflected. The users who are affected to the change > wouldn't

Apache Storm Meetup in BayArea

Hi All, We are planning on scheduling a Storm Meetup in April 1st week. Here is the meetup link https://www.meetup.com/Apache-Storm-Apache-Kafka/. If you are interested in talking about your use-cases in storm there is 1 more slot available, please reach out to me. Thanks, Harsha

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.1.0

setting from new KafkaSpout > >> (master) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1605 > >> > >>> fix NullPointException with acked.get(rtp) > >> (master) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1807 > >> > >> [storm-sql] > >> > >&g

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.0.3 (rc1)

+1 Tested in 3 node vagant cluster and ran few example topologies. Looks good and verified the signature of artifacts. On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:13 AM Bobby Evans wrote: > +1 Ran some simple tests in cluster mode. > > > - Bobby > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017,

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Storm 1.1.0

Trying to check the status on this release of 1.1.0. Are we going to do this release anytime soon? On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:50 PM S G wrote: > Not sure if its a little late to include for the 1.1.0 and 1.0.3 releases > now, but can we consider using zookeeper 3.4.9

Re: [DISCUSS] Adopt pull request template

I am ok with adopting templates but lets keep this process simpler. We've new contributors coming in and they probably didn't have chance to go through process. We can guide them through the process or have strict template that everyone needs to adopt to. I don't think having

Re: [DISCUSSION] Disable integration test

Having integration tests run as part of the travis helps finding any run-time issues that we might not be able to catch otherwise. Can you please file a JIRA, Raghav who put this together might help. Thanks, Harsha On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:15 AM Xin Wang wrote: > Hi

Re: [DISCUSS] breaking changes in 2.x

path there will less uses on the new version. Critical API changes can still be possible by versioning the API. -Harsha On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:06 AM Kyle Nusbaum <knusb...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid> wrote: > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016, 7:23:09 AM CST, Harsha Chintalapani < >

Re: [DISCUSS] breaking changes in 2.x

If we want users to upgrade to new version, the rolling upgrade is a major decision factor. As a community, we need to look API updates or breaking changes much more diligently. I agree to an extent we shouldn't limiting ourselves with rolling upgrade. But having announced rolling-upgrade in 0.10

Re: Fw: Re: [DISCUSS] breaking changes in 2.x

My only concern here is the rolling upgrade of storm cluster. We supported the rolling upgrade going to 0.10 and broke it because of storm 1.x release. Users are not inclined to upgrade to a new release if it's not rolling upgradable. In this case, it looks like we are going to break this. Correct

Re: [DISCUSS] Accept JW Player SQE Code Donation

>From the looks of it the benefit accepting this code donation is to attract more developers on storm-sql . What is stopping SQE developers to come and contribute to JIRAs that are open on storm-sql?. I don't see just accepting code donation and setting aside is not much of a incentive/motivation

Re: Rolling upgrades for a topology using kafka spout

Abhishek, Are you looking rolling upgrade kafka cluster or storm? Harsha On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 6:18 AM Abhishek Agarwal wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2016 2:50 PM, "Abhishek Agarwal" wrote: > > > > > > Here is an interesting use case - To upgrade a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 0.10.2 (RC1)

We need to get this patch in for 0.10 release https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1645 Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:28 AM Bobby Evans wrote: > +1 - Bobby > > On Friday, August 26, 2016 9:03 AM, Jungtaek Lim > wrote: > > > +1

Re: [Vote] Make Java 8 as minimum requirement for Storm 2.0

16, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Harsha Chintalapani <st...@harsha.io> > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > >We had a discussion thread for removing Java 7 support for Storm > > 2.0. > > Here is a formal voting thread and the JIRA > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2041. > > > > Thanks, > > Harsha > >

[Vote] Make Java 8 as minimum requirement for Storm 2.0

Hi All, We had a discussion thread for removing Java 7 support for Storm 2.0. Here is a formal voting thread and the JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2041. Thanks, Harsha

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 0.9.7 (RC1)

Do we have any user requests on releasing 0.9.x . I rather propose them to move on to 0.10.x line and retire 0.9.x branches. There are quite few issues that got fixed in 0.10.x release line and keep maintaining 0.9.x line wouldn't be beneficial. Thanks, Harsha On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:48 PM

[Discussion] Dropping Java 7 support on master

Hi All, Dropping java 7 support on master will allow us to use the new api in Java 8 and since the master is being used for java migration its good to make the decision now. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Harsha

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Storm 1.0.2 (rc4)

+1 (binding) Ran a single node cluster and tried example topologies. Verified signatures on the artifcats. -Harsha On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:02 AM P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Ran on a 3-node cluster and verified fixes. > > -Taylor > > On Jul 26, 2016, at 4:04