Quick update here: I talked to Aljoscha offline, and the backwards compatibility is still being tested (there were some bugs identified while writing the tests).
Also, Stephan made some fixes to the build infrastructure ( https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3029) that would be good to be included into the release branch. To finally get the FLIP-6 branch merged to master, I'm considering branching off the 1.2 release later today. It will be a little bit more overhead for Stephan and Aljoscha, but it will unblock all features waiting for a Flink 1.3 master. On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > Thank you Aljoscha and Fabian for the updates. > I propose *Monday evening (6pm Berlin, 9am US west coast) for feature > freezing Flink 1.2 *then. This means that I'll create a release-1.2 fork > and create a 1.2 RC0 (non-voting) release candidate for testing. > > I don't think that I'll create the first (voting) RC until January because > of christmas and new years activities. Most of the committers I know are > out of office during these 1,5 weeks. > > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I merged the Table API refactoring changes: >> >> - RESOLVED Clean up the packages of the Table API (FLINK-4704) >> - RESOLVED Move Row to flink-core (FLINK-5186) >> >> No blockers left from my side. >> >> Cheers, Fabian >> >> 2016-12-16 17:47 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: >> >> > Yes, I'm confident that we can finish the tests until then and merge the >> > code. >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 17:41 Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Thank you for the update. Do you think you get it done until Monday >> > > evening? >> > > >> > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Aljoscha Krettek < >> aljos...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi, >> > > > we're still working on making the backwards compatibility from 1.1 >> > > > savepoints a reality. We have most of the code and some tests now >> but >> > it >> > > > still needs some work. This is the issue that tracks the progress on >> > the >> > > > operators that we would like to make backwards compatible: >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5292 >> > > > >> > > > Cheers, >> > > > Aljoscha >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 at 11:22 Feng Wang <feng.w...@outlook.com> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > It will be pretty good if 1.2 branch could be forked off within >> this >> > > > week, >> > > > > and our guys working on FLIP-6 hope FLIP-6 branch could be merged >> > into >> > > > > master as soon as possible. >> > > > > >> > > > > Best Regards, >> > > > > >> > > > > Feng Wang >> > > > > >> > > > > Alibaba >> > > > > >> > > > > ________________________________ >> > > > > From: Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> >> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 4:58 AM >> > > > > To: dev@flink.apache.org >> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Schedule and Scope for Flink 1.2 >> > > > > >> > > > > Thank you all for figuring out a solution for the security pull >> > > request. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Lets try to get 1.2 feature freezed as fast as possible so that we >> > can >> > > > > "unblock" waiting features like FLIP-6 and the remaining security >> > > > changes. >> > > > > >> > > > > *What do you think about Friday evening (6pm Berlin, 9am US west >> > coast) >> > > > for >> > > > > feature freezing Flink 1.2?* (only bugfixes are allowed in >> > afterwards) >> > > > > I'll then fork-off a "release-1.2" branch and update the version >> in >> > > > > "master" to 1.3-SNAPSHOT. >> > > > > Please object if you have a bigger change or any other >> reservations >> > > > > regarding the feature freeze date! >> > > > > >> > > > > This is my current view of things on the release: >> > > > > >> > > > > - RESOLVED dynamic Scaling / Key Groups (FLINK-3755) >> > > > > - RESOLVED Add Rescalable Non-Partitioned State (FLINK-4379) >> > > > > - UNRESOLVED Add Flink 1.1 savepoint backwards compatability >> > > (FLINK-4797) >> > > > > - RESOLVED [Split for 1.3] Integrate Flink with Apache Mesos >> > > (FLINK-1984) >> > > > > - UNDER DISCUSSION Secure Data Access (FLINK-3930) >> > > > > - RESOLVED Queryable State (FLINK-3779) >> > > > > - RESOLVED Metrics in Webinterface (FLINK-4389) >> > > > > - RESOLVED Kafka 0.10 support (FLINK-4035) >> > > > > - RESOLVED Table API: Group Window Aggregates (FLINK-4691, >> FLIP-11) >> > > > > - RESOLVED Table API: Scalar Functions (FLINK-3097) >> > > > > Added by Stephan: >> > > > > - NON-BLOCKING [Pending PR] Provide support for asynchronous >> > operations >> > > > > over streams (FLINK-4391) >> > > > > - NON-BLOCKING [beginning of next week] Unify Savepoints and >> > > Checkpoints >> > > > > (FLINK-4484) >> > > > > Added by Fabian: >> > > > > - ONGOING [Pending PR] Clean up the packages of the Table API >> > > > (FLINK-4704) >> > > > > Move Row to flink-core ( >> > > > > Added by Max: >> > > > > - ONGOING [Pending PR] Change Akka configuration to allow >> accessing >> > > > actors >> > > > > from different URLs (FLINK-2821) >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Vijay! >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The workaround you suggest may be doable, but I am wondering how >> > much >> > > > > that >> > > > > > helps, because the authorization feature would be incomplete >> like >> > > that >> > > > > and >> > > > > > thus of limited use. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I would also assume that merging it properly and in full use >> after >> > > the >> > > > > 1.2 >> > > > > > release would be a bit better - in general, we have often >> avoided >> > > last >> > > > > > minute additions of sensitive and complex features. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Do you think it is more urgent to have this in Flink? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > Stephan >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Vijay >> > <vijikar...@yahoo.com.invalid >> > > > >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Max and Ufuk, I respect your concerns and fully understand the >> > > > > importance >> > > > > > > of the network layer stack in Flink code base. Will you be >> > > > comfortable >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > merge the code if I remove the Netty layer changes and leave >> the >> > > rest >> > > > > of >> > > > > > > the code. We can address the Netty code changes post 1.2 >> release? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards, >> > > > > > > Vijay >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:38 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On 12 December 2016 at 12:30:31, Maximilian Michels ( >> > > > m...@apache.org) >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >>> It seems like we lack the resources for now to properly to >> > take >> > > > > > > >> care >> > > > > > > >> of your pull request before the release. Unless someone >> from >> > > > > > > >> the >> > > > > > > >> community is really eager to help out here, I would be in >> > favor >> > > > > > > >> of >> > > > > > > >> merging the pull request to the master after the release >> > branch >> > > > > > > >> has >> > > > > > > >> been forked off. We should make sure it gets the attention >> it >> > > > > deserves >> > > > > > > >> then. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks Max! I fully agree with your reasoning. +1 to not >> > include >> > > > this >> > > > > > in >> > > > > > > 1.2 now, but look at it afterwards. I hope that OK with you >> > Vijay. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - Ufuk >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
