Re: Request for reviewing

I thought STORM-1910 is likely an improvement, not bugfix. That is why I included this to Storm 1.1.0 epic. I'd like to see others' opinions as well. If we think it's a bugfix we can include it to 1.0.2. What do all of you think about this?

Re: Request for reviewing

STORM-1910 -roshan On 7/14/16, 8:59 AM, "Jungtaek Lim" wrote: >We seems close to make all issues for 1.0.2 epic resolved soon. > >Epic link: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1855 >All of open issues are in progress of reviewing. Most of them got +1 and >is

Re: Request for reviewing

We seems close to make all issues for 1.0.2 epic resolved soon. Epic link: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1855 All of open issues are in progress of reviewing. Most of them got +1 and is expected to be merged in soon. Is anyone having other critical or blocker issues which need to

Re: Request for reviewing

Thanks Juntaek, I finally got some time to review it. Regarding the 1.0.2 release, there are a few open/in-progress issues remaining, but I think we should be in a position to cut a new RC sometime next week. -Taylor > On Jul 8, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Jungtaek Lim wrote: > >

Request for reviewing

Hi devs, I've a pull request for a critical issue, and the patch modifies the heart of supervisor code, so I'd like to make my patch get reviewed by more people in community. STORM-1934: Race condition between sync-supervisor and sync-processes raises several strange issues