Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1828#issuecomment-200786158
Thanks! I'm merging this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1800#issuecomment-197318751
+1 from ML discussion.
I guess you can close this together with #1627 when merging.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1794#issuecomment-197338128
Is it in line with the documentation that this only applies if there are
queued requests, i.e. is it OK that a checkpoint might be triggered right after
a checkpoint has
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1801#issuecomment-197321618
Thanks! +1 to merge (while merging you could add the `[docs]` tag).
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1794#discussion_r56330207
--- Diff:
flink-streaming-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/api/environment/StreamExecutionEnvironment.java
---
@@ -277,6 +277,29 @@ public
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1790#issuecomment-196486496
Thanks for the PR and the description. Could you add screenshots so that
more people can get a quick idea of the change? :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1752#issuecomment-196242519
I think Stephan has a point and we should maybe not encourage usage of
`ProgramDescription` in the examples, because we advertise the simple
main-method entry point in all
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1780#issuecomment-195491044
Regarding the stack trace of the Kafka test: the log shows two failures.
- The stack trace you posted is part of a test time out (that's why you
have the interrupti
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/948#issuecomment-195398349
With the recently introduced changes to the resource management in order to
better be in line with Mesos' model, I think we can close this PR. Sorry!
---
If your pr
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/684#issuecomment-195395736
Is this still a relevant PR with all the changes to the runtime in recent
months? If not, can we close this?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1781#issuecomment-195391861
Going to merge w/o the distinction between Linux and OS X. Thanks for
noticing this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1781#issuecomment-195009701
Looks good, the man page actually says:
```
-p source_port
Specifies the source port nc should use, subject to privilege
restrictions and availability
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1780
[FLINK-3595] [runtime] Eagerly destroy buffer pools on cancelling
When canceling a job, the Kafka 0.9 Consumer Thread may be stuck in a
blocking method (output emitting) and never wakes up
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1779#issuecomment-194760972
Sorry, just removed right before you.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1774#issuecomment-193828321
Very very very nice! Thanks for doing this! I like it a lot.
I was wondering whether we want to have a Scala version as well. What do
you think? We can do it as a
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1774#discussion_r55376606
--- Diff: docs/quickstart/run_example_quickstart.md ---
@@ -27,116 +27,360 @@ under the License.
* This will be replaced by the TOC
{:toc
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1774#discussion_r55375307
--- Diff: docs/quickstart/run_example_quickstart.md ---
@@ -27,116 +27,360 @@ under the License.
* This will be replaced by the TOC
{:toc
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1774#discussion_r55376436
--- Diff: docs/quickstart/run_example_quickstart.md ---
@@ -27,116 +27,360 @@ under the License.
* This will be replaced by the TOC
{:toc
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1774#discussion_r55376365
--- Diff: docs/quickstart/run_example_quickstart.md ---
@@ -27,116 +27,360 @@ under the License.
* This will be replaced by the TOC
{:toc
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1774#discussion_r55375032
--- Diff: docs/quickstart/run_example_quickstart.md ---
@@ -27,116 +27,360 @@ under the License.
* This will be replaced by the TOC
{:toc
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1774#discussion_r55375868
--- Diff: docs/quickstart/run_example_quickstart.md ---
@@ -27,116 +27,360 @@ under the License.
* This will be replaced by the TOC
{:toc
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1774#discussion_r55375679
--- Diff: docs/quickstart/run_example_quickstart.md ---
@@ -27,116 +27,360 @@ under the License.
* This will be replaced by the TOC
{:toc
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1774#discussion_r55375144
--- Diff: docs/quickstart/run_example_quickstart.md ---
@@ -27,116 +27,360 @@ under the License.
* This will be replaced by the TOC
{:toc
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1657#issuecomment-192209616
If there are no objections, I am going to merge this to master later today.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1758#issuecomment-192205023
I'm going to merge this today.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1749#issuecomment-190733432
OK, going to merge to master and release-1.0.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1751
[FLINK-3559] [dist] Don't print INFO if no active process
Fix info messages like:
```
[INFO] 0 instance(s) of jobmanager are already running on pablo.
```
You can merge this pull re
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1749#issuecomment-190727002
Thanks Till! The check was duplicated in `BlobServer` and
`FileSystemBlobStore`. Now only config is passed and it's the responsibility of
`FileSystemBlobStore` to cons
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1749#issuecomment-190727944
PS I had a local Travis build with this (1st commit), which succeeded
https://travis-ci.org/uce/flink/builds/112830163 and the blob and recovery
tests succeed on my local
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1749
[FLINK-3556] [runtime] Remove false check in HA blob store configuration
If you use the `RocksDBStateBackend` and configure HA w/o setting the state
backend to `filesystem`, restoring your job will
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1732#issuecomment-190338229
Build failures are unrelated and my local Travis build was successful.
Merging to master and release-1.0.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1735#issuecomment-190327892
My local [Travis build has
passed](https://travis-ci.org/uce/flink/builds/112634854). I will merge this to
`master` and `release-1.0`.
---
If your project is set up for
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1735#issuecomment-190291277
I've fixed the test failures.
@StephanEwen, the changes can result in the following behaviour: if a slot
is released, some of its executions can end up in canc
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1735
[FLINK-3534] [runtime] Prevent canceling Execution from failing
@StephanEwen, can you have a look at this?
This should handle cases where a cancelled execution is failed (as reported
by
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1732
[FLINK-3535] [runtime-web] Decrease log verbosity of
StackTraceSampleCoordinator
@rmetzger pointed out during release testing that logging in
`StackTraceSampleCoordinator` can be quite verbose. I
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1726
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1669#issuecomment-190206976
We had an offline chat with Stephan about this issue and he pointed out a
better solution.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1669
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1726#issuecomment-190206926
We had an offline chat with Stephan about this issue and he pointed out a
better solution.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1716#issuecomment-190121633
I'm merging this to `master` and `release-1.0`.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1700#issuecomment-190112096
Thanks for the PR. Change looks good. I'm going to merge it.
In the future, please follow the coding guidelines with respect to the PR
title and commit msg:
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1726
[FLINK-3443] [runtime] Prevent cancelled jobs from restarting
This is one part of #1669 for which we have consensus I think. It would be
good to have it in the next RC. @rmetzger ran into this issue
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1720#issuecomment-189300207
I would say yes, because a user ran into this issue and asked for a fix.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1720
[FLINK-3390] [runtime, tests] Restore savepoint on ExecutionGraph restart
Temporary work around to restore initial state on failure during recovery as
required by a user. Will be superseded by FLINK
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1716
[FLINK-3517] [dist] Only count active PIDs in start script
```bash
$ bin/start-cluster.sh
Starting cluster.
Starting jobmanager daemon on host pablo.
Starting taskmanager daemon on host
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1712#issuecomment-188932532
I'm merging this to master.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1712#issuecomment-188862999
`mvn clean verify` was successful on my local machine, so if we need this
for a new RC, we can merge it before the Travis run finishes.
---
If your project is set up for
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1712
[FLINK-3513] [FLINK-3512] Fix savepoint issues
@aljoscha spotted the following two issues (so far) while working with
savepoints and the rocks DB state backend.
- FLINK-3513: The operator name
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1708#issuecomment-188502605
Build passes and changes are local to a test. I'm going forward and merging
this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1705#issuecomment-188430962
Thanks for having a look. I'm going to merge this then.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as wel
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1707#issuecomment-188424801
Failed test is unrelated and I think fixed by #1708. I'm merging this for
the release.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1708
[FLINK-3500] [test] Fix possible instability in ExecutionGraphRestartTest
After restart of the execution graph, the test driver waits for the graph
to assign the new executions in a loop. If
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1707
[FLINK-3499] [runtime] Clear ZooKeeper references on recovery
Adds a missing clear call to the ZooKeeperCompletedCheckpointStore. Before,
it could have happened that on multiple calls to recovery after
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1705
[docs] Move state and windows guide to separate pages
I have not changed the content, but only moved the content to separate
pages. I think this is helpful to new users who immediately have links to
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1641#discussion_r53925301
--- Diff:
flink-streaming-java/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/api/graph/SlotAllocationTest.java
---
@@ -40,17 +48,142 @@ public void test
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1697#issuecomment-187979852
Just verified via telnet that this fixes the issue by comparing behaviour
in 1.0.0 RC0 and this PR.
Would be nice if someone confirms this. The error happens when
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1697#issuecomment-187974689
Addressed the comments and made sure that nothing is broken in standalone
and YARN.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1697
[FLINK-3478] [runtime-web] Don't serve files outside of web folder
Previously it was possible to request arbitrary files via the web interface
by specifying a relative file path (this usually doe
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1669#discussion_r53677748
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1487,7 +1487,7 @@ class JobManager
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/138334a6d0181de153abd9bcfabba201ad512f34#commitcomment-16235140
I saw this one failing with the higher timeout last week. Is it OK with you
to give it more time (like 60secs)?
---
If your project
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1669#discussion_r5359
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1487,7 +1487,7 @@ class JobManager
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1678#issuecomment-186596330
Test failure is due to one build failing in an unrelated test (Kafka08).
I'm merging this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1669#discussion_r53531860
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1487,7 +1487,7 @@ class JobManager
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1676#issuecomment-186440261
Thanks, let me merge this then.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1678
[FLINK-3453] [runtime, runtime-web] Report partial stack trace sample for
cleared tasks
Ongoing stack trace samples were considered failed if the tasks were
cleared concurrently. Instead, they now
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1673#issuecomment-186370222
Merging this
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1676
Various test stability fixes
Includes various test stability fixes. This does not address all issues
encountered in the past weeks, but most. I will trigger further builds with
this and see what comes
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1673
[FLINK-3446] [runtime-web] Don't trigger back pressure sample for archived
job
Sampling a back pressure sample when the job has been archived, lead to a
NPE being thrown as reported by @rmetzger
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1669#discussion_r53354572
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ class JobManager(
// shut down the
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1669
[FLINK-3443] [runtime] Prevent cancelled jobs from restarting
After JobManager shut down, it was possible that jobs were restarted,
because the execution graphs were failed and not cancelled. Although
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1659#issuecomment-185374491
+1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1656
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1656
[FLINK-3396] [runtime] Fix JobGraph submission and client ACK logic
A failure when recovering savepoint state could lead to not ACKing
the job submission. For detached submissions, this could have
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1657
[FLINK-3396] [runtime] Suppress job restart if adding to job graph store
fails
@tillrohrmann, this leaves everything as is, but suppresses the restart in
case of a failure to add the job graph to
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1642#issuecomment-185205104
OK, I'm going to merge this then.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project doe
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1645#discussion_r53139307
--- Diff: docs/apis/common/index.md ---
@@ -0,0 +1,1356 @@
+---
+title: "Basic Concepts"
+
+# Top-level navigation
+top-nav-g
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1645#issuecomment-185116660
Looks great! +1 to merge asap.
As follow ups we should consider making windowing and working with state
also separate pages. What do you think?
---
If your
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1642#issuecomment-184755784
The `CompletedCheckpoint` comes from the `CheckpointCoordinator`.
Savepoints are the same thing. Therefore I would keep it as it is.
---
If your project is set up for it
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633#issuecomment-184719993
Closing this...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633#discussion_r53019879
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1079,6 +1079,9 @@ class JobManager
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633#issuecomment-184694713
Travis has passed. Did you have another look at this @tillrohrmann?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1641#discussion_r53010068
--- Diff:
flink-streaming-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/api/transformations/StreamTransformation.java
---
@@ -202,6 +203,29 @@ public String
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1642
[FLINK-3299] Remove ApplicationID from Environment
As per discussion in the issue, we decided to remove the the
`ApplicationID`.
Replaces the app ID in RocksDB and DB backend with job ID. I&#x
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633#discussion_r53000913
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1073,57 +1073,73 @@ class JobManager(
// execute
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633#discussion_r52999704
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1079,6 +1079,9 @@ class JobManager
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633#discussion_r52998947
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1073,57 +1073,73 @@ class JobManager(
// execute
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633#discussion_r52997375
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1073,57 +1073,73 @@ class JobManager(
// execute
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633#issuecomment-184599724
Thanks for review Till! I've [opened an
issue](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3411) for the failure
behaviour in case of checkpoint state rec
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633#discussion_r52986635
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1073,57 +1073,73 @@ class JobManager(
// execute
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1640#issuecomment-184284513
Great addition. But in my personal opinion it's not a good idea to name the
sink exactly once when you say: *Note that a job failure while the data is
being committed
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633#issuecomment-184250973
@tillrohrmann, could you have a look at this change?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1637
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1637#issuecomment-184250578
I think there is a better way to do this, which should also cover
[FLINK-3397](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3397).
---
If your project is set up for it, you
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1637
[FLINK-3390] [runtime, tests] Reset Execution state on ExecutionVertex reset
Resuming from a savepoint sets the initial state of the execution graph. If
the restore operation fails on the task managers
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1564#issuecomment-184105956
Thank you Greg! Let me try this out once more and then merge it if
everything works as expected.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1633
[FLINK-3396] [runtime] Fail job submission after state restore failure
If state restore fails during job graph submission, the submitting client
never gets notified about the submission failure. For
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1470#issuecomment-183271832
Thank you very much! Behaviour is as I would expect it.
Last minor comment: can you add a comment in the deprecated methods (both
Java and Scala) with a reference
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1470#issuecomment-183037438
Thanks for addressing the comments. Changes look good!
Regarding the API breaking config key changes: is it feasible to just
deprecate the old configuration keys
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1622#issuecomment-183009153
Travis gives the green light (finally). I'm going to merge this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitH
901 - 1000 of 1607 matches
Mail list logo
