I don't know what is best to do, but I think releasing 1.2.1 with potentially more bugs than 1.2.0 is not a good option. I suspect a good workaround for FLINK-6188 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188> is setting the parallelism manually for operators that can't cope with the default -1 parallelism.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > You mean reverting the changes around FLINK-5808 [1]? This is what > introduced the follow-up FLINK-6188 [2]. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5808 > [2]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, at 19:10, Robert Metzger wrote: > > I think reverting FLINK-6188 for the 1.2 branch might be a good idea. > > FLINK-6188 introduced two new bugs, so undoing the FLINK-6188 fix will > > lead > > only to one known bug in 1.2.1, instead of an uncertain number of issues. > > So 1.2.1 is not going to be worse than 1.2.0 > > > > The fix will hopefully make it into 1.2.2 then. > > > > Any other thoughts on this? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I merged the fix for FLINK-6044 to the release-1.2 and release-1.1 > branch. > > > > > > 2017-03-31 15:02 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > We should also backport the fix for FLINK-6044 to Flink 1.2.1. > > > > > > > > I'll take care of that. > > > > > > > > 2017-03-30 18:50 GMT+02:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 turns out to be a > bit > > > >> more involved, see my comments on the PR: > > > >> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616. > > > >> > > > >> As I said there, maybe we should revert the commits regarding > > > >> parallelism/max-parallelism changes and release and then fix it > later. > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > > >> > I commented on FLINK-6214: I think it's working as intended, > although > > > we > > > >> > could fix the javadoc/doc. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, at 17:35, Timo Walther wrote: > > > >> > > A user reported that all tumbling and slinding window assigners > > > >> contain > > > >> > > a pretty obvious bug about offsets. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6214 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I think we should also fix this for 1.2.1. What do you think? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Regards, > > > >> > > Timo > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Am 29/03/17 um 11:30 schrieb Robert Metzger: > > > >> > > > Hi Haohui, > > > >> > > > I agree that we should fix the parallelism issue. Otherwise, > the > > > >> 1.2.1 > > > >> > > > release would introduce a new bug. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Haohui Mai < > ricet...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> -1 (non-binding) > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> We recently found out that all jobs submitted via UI will > have a > > > >> > > >> parallelism of 1, potentially due to FLINK-5808. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> Filed FLINK-6209 to track it. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> ~Haohui > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM Chesnay Schepler < > > > >> ches...@apache.org> > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >>> If possible I would like to include FLINK-6183 & FLINK-6184 > as > > > >> well. > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> They fix 2 metric-related issues that could arise when a > Task is > > > >> > > >>> cancelled very early. (like, right away) > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was > > > >> never closed > > > >> > > >>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer > metrics > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611 > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > > >> > > >>>> I opened a PR for FLINK-6188: https://github.com/apache/ > > > >> > > >> flink/pull/3616 > > > >> > > >>> <https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616> > > > >> > > >>>> This improves the previously very sparse test coverage for > > > >> > > >>> timestamp/watermark assigners and fixes the bug. > > > >> > > >>>>> On 25 Mar 2017, at 10:22, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> I agree with Aljoscha. > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188 > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < > > > >> > > >> aljos...@apache.org> > > > >> > > >>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>>> I filed this issue, which was observed by a user: > > > >> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 > > > >> > > >>>>>> I think that’s blocking for 1.2.1. > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> On 24 Mar 2017, at 18:57, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> RC1 doesn't contain Stefan's backport for the > Asynchronous > > > >> snapshots > > > >> > > >>>>>>> for heap-based keyed state that has been merged. Should > we > > > >> create > > > >> > > >> RC2 > > > >> > > >>>>>>> with that fix since the voting period only starts on > Monday? > > > >> I think > > > >> > > >>>>>>> it would only mean rerunning the scripts on your side, > > > right? > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> – Ufuk > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger < > > > >> > > >> rmetz...@apache.org> > > > >> > > >>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Dear Flink community, > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as > Apache > > > >> Flink > > > >> > > >>> version 1.2 > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> .1. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> The commit to be voted on: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> *732e55bd* (* > > > >> > > >>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/flink/commit/ > 732e55bd > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> <http://git-wip-us.apache.org/ > > > repos/asf/flink/commit/732e55b > > > >> d>*) > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Branch: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> release-1.2.1-rc1 > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/ > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> <http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/>* > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> The release artifacts are signed with the key with > > > >> fingerprint > > > >> > > >>> D9839159: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> The staging repository for this release can be found > at: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>> https://repository.apache.org/ > content/repositories/orgapache > > > >> flink-1116 > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------ > > > >> - > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1 > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ... > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
