Thanks everybody for the testing of the RC1! I'm hereby cancelling the first RC due to a critical bug in the serializer stack, reported by Till.
I'll create the next RC once the fix is in. On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org> wrote: > I looked at the changes in the PRs [1, 2]. > I agree that it would be better to include the fixes in 1.3.1. > > If we agree to cancel RC1 for RC2 (with shorter voting period), I’ll start > massaging the PRs to be merged for 1.3.1 (currently the changes in the PRs > are targeted for 1.3.2). > They should be ready before tomorrow, so that we can start RC2 soon. > > > On 19 June 2017 at 8:06:11 PM, Robert Metzger (rmetz...@apache.org) wrote: > > If we really have to introduce a special path in the serializer config for > 1.3.1 to 1.3.2, then I would indeed suggest to cancel the RC1. > > If only this one commit is different between RC1 and RC2, we can do a > reduced voting period for RC2. > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I think this actually not true, since in 1.3.0 the field `enumConstants` > in > > `ScalaEnumSerializerConfigSnapshot` was always serialized as `null`. > Thus, > > due to this we wouldn't have to bump the format if we included FLINK-6948 > > in 1.3.1. If this weren't the case, we would have to bump it also for > 1.3.1 > > (excluding FLINK-6948). > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai < > tzuli...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > No, I meant that if we include FLINK-6921 / FLINK-6948 in 1.3.1, we > also > > > still need to bump the version due to changes in FLINK-6948. > > > So, that the version needs to be bumped would not be a reason to block > > > 1.3.1 on it, because we have to do it either way. > > > > > > On 19 June 2017 at 7:33:25 PM, Till Rohrmann (trohrm...@apache.org) > > wrote: > > > > > > Do you mean that we have to bump the version also without including > > > FLINK-6921 and FLINK-6948? Wouldn't that be a release blocker then? > > > > > > I think that we actually introduced FLINK-6921 with [1]. Thus, the > > > `ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException` is specific to this release. > However, I > > > agree that the serializer was broken before as well, however, in a > > > different way. > > > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/5281dd6598f17c8dfe0c7b091c90c8 > > > 721d305375 > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Till > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai < > > tzuli...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The ScalaEnumSerializerConfigSnapshot would need a version bump > > > > regardless of whether or not the fixes are included in 1.3.1. > > > > In other words, we still need to bump the version if we include it > for > > > > 1.3.1. > > > > > > > > I’m not against including FLINK-6921 and FLINK-6948 in for 1.3.1, but > > > then > > > > as usual the argument would be that the problem had always been there > > and > > > > is not specific to this release. > > > > I’m personally usually favorable of delaying the release a bit more > to > > > get > > > > fixes for issues we know of in. > > > > > > > > I’ll look at the PRs for FLINK-6921 and FLINK-6948 now, and merge > them > > > > soon. We could probably have a RC2 with a shorter vote duration? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Gordon > > > > > > > > On 19 June 2017 at 7:10:11 PM, Till Rohrmann (trohrm...@apache.org) > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think the EnumValueSerializer [1, 2] is broken in the current RC. > > This > > > > basically means that Flink programs won’t properly notice that state > > > > migration is required and or fail with obscure exceptions at > migration > > > > check or runtime. > > > > > > > > This definitely will be enough reason for another bug fix release if > we > > > > don’t want to include fixes in 1.3.1. If we include the fixes in > 1.3.2, > > > > then this will require a version bump for the > > > > ScalaEnumSerializerConfigSnapshot because we have to change the > > format. > > > > This also entails code for backwards compatibility. > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6921 > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6948 > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Till > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Dawid Wysakowicz < > > > > wysakowicz.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > - built from source (2.10, 2.11) > > > > > - checked aggregate function with AggregateFunction return type > > > different > > > > > than stream type > > > > > > > > > > Z pozdrowieniami! / Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > Dawid Wysakowicz > > > > > > > > > > *Data/Software Engineer* > > > > > > > > > > Skype: dawid_wys | Twitter: @OneMoreCoder > > > > > > > > > > <http://getindata.com/> > > > > > > > > > > 2017-06-19 7:15 GMT+02:00 Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org > >: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Tested the following blockers of 1.3.1: > > > > > > > > > > > > Serializers & checkpointing > > > > > > - Verified Scala jobs using Scala types as state (Scala > > collections, > > > > case > > > > > > classes, Either, Try, etc.) can restore from savepoints taken > with > > > > Flink > > > > > > 1.2.1 & 1.3.1. Tested with Scala 2.10 & 2.11. > > > > > > - Tested restore of POJO types as state, behavior & error > messages > > > for > > > > > > changed POJO types consistent across different state backends > > > > > > - Tested stream join with checkpointing enabled > > > > > > - Sharing static state descriptor (w/ stateful KryoSerializer) > > across > > > > > > tasks did not reveal any issues > > > > > > > > > > > > Elasticsearch connector > > > > > > - ES 5 connector artifacts exists in staging repo > > > > > > - Tested cluster execution with ES sink (2.3.5, 2.4.1, 5.1.2), no > > > > > > dependency conflicts, successful > > > > > > > > > > > > Flink CEP > > > > > > - Out-of-order matched events is now resolved > > > > > > > > > > > > - Ran local build + test on MacOS (-Dscala-2.10, -Dscala-2.11), > > > > > successful > > > > > > - LICENSES untouched since 1.3.0 > > > > > > - No new dependencies > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Gordon > > > > > > > > > > > > On 14 June 2017 at 10:14:39 PM, Robert Metzger ( > > rmetz...@apache.org) > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Flink community, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Flink > > > > version > > > > > > 1.3.1. > > > > > > > > > > > > The commit to be voted on: > > > > > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/flink/commit/7cfe62b9 > > > > > > > > > > > > Branch: > > > > > > release-1.3.1-rc1 > > > > > > > > > > > > The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at: > > > > > > *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.3.1-rc1/ > > > > > > <http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.3.1-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/ > > > orgapacheflink-1124 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote ends on Monday (5pm CEST), June 19rd, 2016. > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.3.1 > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
