Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3049#discussion_r95203611
--- Diff: tools/create_release_files.sh ---
@@ -201,19 +262,34 @@ prepare
make_source_release
-make_binary_release "hadoop2&quo
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3049#discussion_r95202566
--- Diff: tools/create_release_files.sh ---
@@ -66,16 +66,19 @@ fi
GPG_PASSPHRASE=${GPG_PASSPHRASE:-XXX}
GPG_KEY=${GPG_KEY:-XXX}
GIT_AUTHOR
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3042
Thanks for checking it out Robert. Would love to merge it for 1.2 as well.
I fixed the rounding issue.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3059
Thanks again. Just merged this to `master` (b03ad79) and `release-1.2`
(2aaa093).
---
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 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3059
Thanks for these clarifications. I'm going to merge it with the next batch.
In the current master we also have a new checkpoints page at
`setup/checkpoints.html` where we can add these notes as well
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3059#discussion_r95131686
--- Diff: docs/dev/restart_strategies.md ---
@@ -28,8 +28,9 @@ In case that the job is submitted with a restart
strategy, this strategy overrid
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3059#discussion_r95131517
--- Diff: docs/setup/config.md ---
@@ -162,24 +162,27 @@ will be used under the directory specified by
jobmanager.web.tmpdir.
- `high
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3042
Sorry for the long delay here. We can add that number as a separate column
*Triggering Delay*. What do you think? As a follow up I would also like to add
documentation about what all the numbers mean
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3042
Hey Stephan! Thanks for spotting the typo. The numbers are already reported
but I forgot to attach the screenshot. They are only reported for each
operator/task though, because I'm not sure what would
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3042
[FLINK-4410] Expose more fine grained checkpoint statistics
This PR exposes more fine grained checkpoint statistics. The previous
version of the tracking code had a couple of short comings:
- Only
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/79d7e3017efe7c96e449e6f339fd7184ef3d1ba2#commitcomment-20198072
OK, just found it in `setup/checkpoints.md`. Perfect place for it ð
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user uce commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/79d7e3017efe7c96e449e6f339fd7184ef3d1ba2#commitcomment-20198048
This commit accidentally removed the newly added docs about Externalized
Checkpoints (in `setup/fault_tolerance.md`. @alpinegizmo
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2996
---
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
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2752
---
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
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2996
[FLINK-5326] [network] Check release flag of parent in reader
In `PipelinedSubpartitionView`, there is a possible race with releasing the
parent subpartition and querying for a buffer in the view
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2752
OK, I agree that it's better to leave it as is for the release. With the
upcoming feature freeze, I don't think there is enough time to properly address
this. I will cherry pick the docs changes
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2750
---
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
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2883
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2883
@StephanEwen I think we're going to leave this out of the upcoming 1.2
release after all. From cluster tests it seems like it didn't help as much as
we wanted. What do you think?
---
If your project
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2912
Build passed. Going to merge with the next batch.
---
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 closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2975
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2829
Thanks for addressing the comments, Nico. Going to merge this with the next
batch.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2806
Thanks for addressing the comments, Nico. Going to merge this with the next
batch.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2805
Thanks for addressing the comments, Nico. Going to merge this with the next
batch.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2971
Looks good to be merged imo. I just kicked off RC2... If you would like to
have this in 1.1.4, I can re-trigger the build.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2912
Forwarding the feedback from #2975 since the main changes are similar and
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2975
Thanks for your review Stephan! Going to address your comment and merge
this for 1.1.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2975
[backport] [FLINK-5114] [network] Handle partition producer state check for
unregistered executions
Reverted some changes made in #2913 after a discussion with @StephanEwen
and decided to close
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2913
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2913
Closing in favour of #2975.
---
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
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2972#discussion_r91626592
--- Diff: docs/monitoring/metrics.md ---
@@ -335,6 +345,21 @@ Parameters:
- `ttl` - time-to-live for transmitted UDP packets
- `addressingMode` - UDP
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2972
Very good idea! This will definitely be helpful for users.
---
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 issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2967
Good catches! Merging...
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2966
Stephan, Aljoscha: I can take a look at this tomorrow or next week.
---
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 issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2913
I removed the `findExecutionAttemptWithId` and only check the latest
attempt. If that does not match the expected producer attempt, I answer with a
`PartitionProducerDisposedException` to which
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2955
---
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
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2957
---
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
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2957
[FLINK-5276] [eg] Check for null when archiving prior execution attempts
The `EvictingBoundedList` returns the default value for all evicted
elements. This could lead to NPE when archiving
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2955
[backport] Improve some follow up exceptions
Improves follow up Exceptions when the job failed in a different place:
1) Check partition state if returned buffer is null in `LocalInputChannel`.
2
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2750
In HA mode, checkpoints are not deleted on suspension. This PR won't change
that behaviour. It only affects non-HA behaviour.
Currently, the behaviour is to remove checkpoints on suspension
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2886
Tested this vs. the current master and it works as expected. In the current
master, the metrics are not updated after the TM disassociates from the JM.
With this PR the reporter is closed, restarted
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2944
Going to merge this with the next batch
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2947
Going to merge this with the next batch
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2912
Rebased on master and implemented feedback from #2913.
---
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 issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2913
> Why is that necessary? Can we not just assume that if the attempt is not
equal to the current execution attempt, then the status is some form of
"disposed".
It's not necessary. I
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2886
OK that also explains why it didn't occur for me with the current
release-1.1 branch. ;)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2886
Can you open a PR with a backport of this for 1.1.4 please?
---
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 a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2944#discussion_r90864551
--- Diff:
flink-metrics/flink-metrics-dropwizard/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/dropwizard/ScheduledDropwizardReporter.java
---
@@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ protected
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2944#discussion_r90864749
--- Diff:
flink-metrics/flink-metrics-dropwizard/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/dropwizard/ScheduledDropwizardReporterTest.java
---
@@ -124,6 +129,89 @@ public
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2944#discussion_r90864577
--- Diff:
flink-metrics/flink-metrics-dropwizard/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/dropwizard/ScheduledDropwizardReporter.java
---
@@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ protected
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2886
I tested this, but could not reproduce the reported erroneous behaviour.
After the task manager reconnects to a new job manager, the metrics are still
being reported. I tested this with JMX and Log4j
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2933
Tests passed locally (https://travis-ci.org/uce/flink/builds/181127041)
except for one known issue and a test instability. Going to merge this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2786
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2786
Closing in favour of #2933.
---
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
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2933
[FLINK-5016] [checkpointing] Split EventTimeWindowCheckpointingITCase
Split EventTimeWindowCheckpointingITCase up into multiple tests in order to
not run into the no output to stdout CI limit
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2829
Good additions with the Javadocs. All changes looks good to me.
---
While looking over the Serializer interface I noticed that `clear` and
`clearCurrentBuffer` are dangerously similar
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2805#discussion_r90777420
--- Diff:
flink-streaming-java/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/runtime/tasks/StreamMockEnvironment.java
---
@@ -215,6 +189,31 @@ public Void answer
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2805#discussion_r90778003
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/io/network/api/writer/RecordWriterTest.java
---
@@ -421,22 +423,19 @@ private
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2805#discussion_r90777407
--- Diff:
flink-streaming-java/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/runtime/tasks/StreamMockEnvironment.java
---
@@ -215,6 +189,31 @@ public Void answer
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2805#discussion_r90777958
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/io/network/api/writer/RecordWriter.java
---
@@ -131,35 +132,30 @@ private void sendToTarget(T
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2805#discussion_r90777962
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/io/network/api/writer/ResultPartitionWriter.java
---
@@ -71,21 +68,26 @@ public void writeBuffer
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2806
Very good changes in general. The following should be addressed before
merging though:
- Add tests to `EventSerializerTest` with all currently available events
(including `OTHER_EVENT` instances
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2927
Thanks for spotting these. It's fine to have both fixes in this PR. Going
to merge this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2930#discussion_r90775426
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/checkpoint/CheckpointCoordinator.java
---
@@ -735,15 +735,15 @@ else if (checkpoint != null
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2930#discussion_r90775397
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1376,6 +1376,24 @@ class JobManager
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2930#discussion_r90775412
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -1376,6 +1376,24 @@ class JobManager
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2924
Tested this with a job that fails during checkpointing and it works like a
charm for both chained and non chained state, but I found another issue with
discarding pending checkpoints. The task states
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2886
The changes and the test look good to me. While waiting for Travis, I will
test this with an HA cluster. We can merge this if everything succeeds.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2886#discussion_r90651728
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/taskmanager/TaskManager.scala
---
@@ -1046,11 +1046,10 @@ class TaskManager
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2886
This has been marked as a blocker for 1.1.4. Is there a chance that we will
get this in today?
---
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/2873#discussion_r90258638
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/checkpoint/CheckpointCoordinator.java
---
@@ -731,46 +700,100 @@ public boolean
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2873#discussion_r90258544
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/checkpoint/CheckpointCoordinator.java
---
@@ -731,46 +700,100 @@ public boolean
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2873#discussion_r90258796
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/checkpoint/CheckpointCoordinator.java
---
@@ -731,46 +700,100 @@ public boolean
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2873#discussion_r90257889
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/checkpoint/CheckpointCoordinator.java
---
@@ -651,64 +651,33 @@ public boolean
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2899
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2899
Added `FlinkUntypedActor` as well and addressed the comments, Till. I would
like to merge this now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2912
[FLINK-5114] [network] Handle partition producer state check for
unregistered executions
If a partition state request is triggered for a producer that terminates
before the request arrives
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2913
[backport] [FLINK-5114] [network] Handle partition producer state check for
unregistered executions
This is a backport of #2912.
Code between 1.1 and 1.2 slightly changed. I decided to further
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2910#discussion_r90235653
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/ZooKeeperSubmittedJobGraphStore.java
---
@@ -275,6 +242,25 @@ public void
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2910#discussion_r90237601
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/scala/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/JobManager.scala
---
@@ -505,37 +507,31 @@ class JobManager
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2910#discussion_r90235223
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/jobmanager/SubmittedJobGraphStore.java
---
@@ -64,6 +57,14 @@
void removeJobGraph(JobID
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2899#discussion_r90235045
--- Diff: flink-dist/src/main/flink-bin/conf/log4j.properties ---
@@ -16,14 +16,26 @@
# limitations under the License
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2899#discussion_r90233890
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/checkpoint/TaskState.java
---
@@ -168,4 +168,21 @@ public boolean equals(Object obj
Github user uce commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2899#discussion_r90233907
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/fs/hdfs/HadoopFileSystem.java
---
@@ -211,17 +209,14 @@ public HadoopFileSystem(Class fsClass
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2883
I renamed the config key and added unit tests for the sub components. This
should be good enough to get it in if Travis gives us an OK. As a follow up I
would like to finish a end to end test similar
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2883
I agree with the renaming you propose.
I would not allow `flush()` to override the capacity limit as this has the
potential to circumvent the capacity limit with a low latency `OutputFlusher
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2899
Various logging improvements
I would like to include the following fixes for the 1.1.4 release. In
general, I try to improve the debugging experience with this.
1. **Reduce log pollution
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2896
Good catch! The `RemoveJob` cannot succeed since is also checking the
`currentJobs` that are checked for `JobStatusChanged` already. So in the end,
the only case where this actually triggers removal
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2882
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2882
Thanks for the review, I'll address them and merge 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 issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2752
@StephanEwen Do you have time to look at this? This exposes the checkpoint
directories via the state backend and let's the JobManager use that one for
checkpoint directory configurations.
---
If your
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2750
@StephanEwen Do you have time to look at this? Currently, when externalized
checkpoints are configured and the cluster shuts down via suspending all jobs,
the externalized checkpoints are cleaned up
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2764
@thvasilo I think that should be handled in a separate PR.
@StephanEwen Yes, I think this is a good differentiation to make in the
docs. If it is not possible to write Flink programs
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2795
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2795
Rebased this on latest release branch and going to merge later today after
Travis.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2794
---
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
Github user uce closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2739
---
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
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2457
Would be cool if we could also merge this to `release-1.1` if it is good to
merge.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user uce commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2795
Hey Max! I was also not aware of this issue but Stephan pointed it out to
me. You can access the user code loader in rich functions via
```
getRuntimeContext().getUserCodeClassLoader
GitHub user uce opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2795
Revert "[FLINK-4913][yarn] include user jars in system class loader"
In general, a very good fix imo, but it is part of RC1 for 1.1.4. It might
be better to exclude it for the bug fix rel
401 - 500 of 1497 matches
Mail list logo
