- verified checksums and signature - built Flink from source release with Scala 2.12 - Executed some example jobs successfully - verified license and notice files
I found the following issues with some NOTICE files: * flink-connector-hive: org.apache.parquet:parquet-format:1.10.0 -> org.apache.parquet:parquet-format:2.4.0 * flink-connector-kinesis: com.amazonaws:aws-java-sdk-dynamodb:jar:1.11.754 -> com.amazonaws:aws-java-sdk-dynamodb:jar:1.11.603 com.amazonaws:aws-java-sdk-s3:jar:1.11.754 -> com.amazonaws:aws-java-sdk-s3:jar:1.11.603 com.amazonaws:aws-java-sdk-kms:jar:1.11.754 -> com.amazonaws:aws-java-sdk-kms:jar:1.11.603 * flink-sql-parquet: org.apache.commons:commons-compress:1.20 not used So these three modules report wrong versions for their dependencies in the NOTICE files. I would argue that this is not a big problem since the license did not change and we are not required to list ASL 2.0 dependencies. Hence, I would suggest to continue with the release voting. I will open a PR to fix these problems soon. Given that this is not a problem and that we don't find a problem in the network stack, +1 for this release candidate. Cheers, Till On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 5:29 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote: > Listing more than we need to (especially if it is apache licensed) isn't > a big problem, since nothing changes from a users perspective in regards > to licensing. > > On 02/07/2020 17:08, Robert Metzger wrote: > > Issues found: > > - > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1377/org/apache/flink/flink-runtime_2.12/1.11.0/flink-runtime_2.12-1.11.0.jar > > ./META-INF/NOTICE lists "org.uncommons.maths:uncommons-maths:1.2.2a" as a > > bundled dependency. However, it seems they are not bundled. I'm waiting > > with my vote until we've discussed this issue. I'm leaning towards > > continuing the release vote ( > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18471). > > > > Checks: > > - source archive compiles > > - checked artifacts in staging repo > > - flink-azure-fs-hadoop-1.11.0.jar seems to have a correct NOTICE file > > - versions in pom seem correct > > - checked some other jars > > - ... I will continue later ... > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:47 PM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> +1 (binding) from my side > >> > >> - legal files (license, notice) looks correct > >> - no binaries in the release > >> - ran examples from command line > >> - ran some examples from web ui > >> - log files look sane > >> - RocksDB, incremental checkpoints, savepoints, moving savepoints > >> all works as expected. > >> > >> There are some friction points, which have also been mentioned. > However, I > >> am not sure they need to block the release. > >> - Some batch examples in the web UI have not been working in 1.10. We > >> should fix that asap, because it impacts the "getting started" > experience, > >> but I personally don't vote against the release based on that > >> - Same for the CDC bug. It is unfortunate, but I would not hold the > >> release at such a late stage for one special issue in a new connector. > >> Let's work on a timely 1.11.1. > >> > >> > >> I would withdraw my vote, if we find a fundamental issue in the network > >> system causing the increased checkpoint delays, causing the job > regression > >> Thomas mentioned. > >> Such a core bug would be a deal-breaker for a large fraction of users. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:35 AM Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com > >> .invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I also agree with Till and Robert's proposals. > >>> > >>> In general I think we should not block the release based on current > >>> estimation. Otherwise we continuously postpone the release, it might > >>> probably occur new bugs for blockers, then we might probably > >>> get stuck in such cycle to not give a final release for users in time. > >> But > >>> that does not mean RC4 would be the final one, and we can reevaluate > the > >>> effects in progress with the accumulated issues. > >>> > >>> Regarding the performance regression, if possible we can reproduce to > >>> analysis the reason based on Thomas's feedback, then we can evaluate > its > >>> effect. > >>> > >>> Regarding the FLINK-18461, after syncing with Jark offline, the bug > would > >>> effect one of three scenarios for using CDC feature, and this effected > >>> scenario is actually the most commonly used way by users. > >>> My suggestion is to merge it into release-1.11 ATM since the PR already > >>> open for review, then let's further finalize the conclusion later. If > >> this > >>> issue is the only one after RC4 going through, then another option is > to > >>> cover it in next release-1.11.1 as Robert suggested, as we can prepare > >> for > >>> the next minor release soon. If there are other blockers issues during > >>> voting and necessary to be resolved soon, then it is no doubt to cover > >> all > >>> of them in next RC5. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Zhijiang > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> From:Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > >>> Send Time:2020年7月2日(星期四) 16:46 > >>> To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > >>> Cc:Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> > >>> Subject:Re: [VOTE] Release 1.11.0, release candidate #4 > >>> > >>> I agree with Robert. > >>> > >>> @Chesnay: The problem has probably already existed in Flink 1.10 and > >>> before because we cannot run jobs with eager execution calls from the > web > >>> ui. I agree with Robert that we can/should improve our documentation in > >>> this regard, though. > >>> > >>> @Thomas: > >>> 1. I will update the release notes to add a short section describing > that > >>> one needs to configure the JobManager memory. > >>> 2. Concerning the performance regression we should look into it. I > >> believe > >>> Zhijiang is very eager to learn more about your exact setup to further > >>> debug it. Again I agree with Robert to not block the release on it at > the > >>> moment. > >>> > >>> @Jark: How much of a problem is FLINK-18461? Will it make the CDC > feature > >>> completely unusable or will only make a subset of the use cases to not > >>> work? If it is the latter, then I believe that we can document the > >>> limitations and try to fix it asap. Depending on the remaining testing > >> the > >>> fix might make it into the 1.11.0 or the 1.11.1 release. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Till > >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:33 AM Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> Thanks a lot for the thorough testing Thomas! This is really helpful! > >>> > >>> @Chesnay: I would not block the release on this. The web submission > does > >>> not seem to be the documented / preferred way of job submission. It > is > >>> unlikely to harm the beginner's experience (and they would anyways > not > >>> read > >>> the release notes). I mention the beginner experience, because they > are > >>> the > >>> primary audience of the examples. > >>> > >>> Regarding FLINK-18461 / Jark's issue: I would not block the release > on > >>> that, but still try to get it fixed asap. It is likely that this RC > >>> doesn't > >>> go through (given the rate at which we are finding issues), and even > if > >> it > >>> goes through, we can document it as a known issue in the release > >>> announcement and immediately release 1.11.1. > >>> Blocking the release on this causes quite a bit of work for the > release > >>> managers for rolling a new RC. Until we have understood the > performance > >>> regression Thomas is reporting, I would keep this RC open, and keep > >>> testing. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hi, > >>> > > >>> > I'm very sorry but we just found a blocker issue FLINK-18461 [1] in > >> the > >>> new > >>> > feature of changelog source (CDC). > >>> > This bug will result in queries on changelog source can’t be > inserted > >>> into > >>> > upsert sink (e.g. ES, JDBC, HBase), > >>> > which is a common case in production. CDC is one of the important > >>> features > >>> > of Table/SQL in this release, > >>> > so from my side, I hope we can have this fix in 1.11.0, otherwise, > >> this > >>> is > >>> > a broken feature... > >>> > > >>> > Again, I am terribly sorry for delaying the release... > >>> > > >>> > Best, > >>> > Jark > >>> > > >>> > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18461 > >>> > > >>> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 12:02, Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com > >>> .invalid> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Hi Thomas, > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks for the efficient feedback. > >>> > > > >>> > > Regarding the suggestion of adding the release notes document, I > >> agree > >>> > > with your point. Maybe we should adjust the vote template > >> accordingly > >>> in > >>> > > the respective wiki to guide the following release processes. > >>> > > > >>> > > Regarding the performance regression, could you provide some more > >>> details > >>> > > for our better measurement or reproducing on our sides? > >>> > > E.g. I guess the topology only includes two vertexes source and > >> sink? > >>> > > What is the parallelism for every vertex? > >>> > > The upstream shuffles data to the downstream via rebalance > >>> partitioner or > >>> > > other? > >>> > > The checkpoint mode is exactly-once with rocksDB state backend? > >>> > > The backpressure happened in this case? > >>> > > How much percentage regression in this case? > >>> > > > >>> > > Best, > >>> > > Zhijiang > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > > From:Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> > >>> > > Send Time:2020年7月2日(星期四) 09:54 > >>> > > To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > >>> > > Subject:Re: [VOTE] Release 1.11.0, release candidate #4 > >>> > > > >>> > > Hi Till, > >>> > > > >>> > > Yes, we don't have the setting in flink-conf.yaml. > >>> > > > >>> > > Generally, we carry forward the existing configuration and any > >> change > >>> to > >>> > > default configuration values would impact the upgrade. > >>> > > > >>> > > Yes, since it is an incompatible change I would state it in the > >>> release > >>> > > notes. > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks, > >>> > > Thomas > >>> > > > >>> > > BTW I found a performance regression while trying to upgrade > another > >>> > > pipeline with this RC. It is a simple Kinesis to Kinesis job. > Wasn't > >>> able > >>> > > to pin it down yet, symptoms include increased checkpoint > alignment > >>> time. > >>> > > > >>> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:04 AM Till Rohrmann < > trohrm...@apache.org > >>> > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi Thomas, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > just to confirm: When starting the image in local mode, then > you > >>> don't > >>> > > have > >>> > > > any of the JobManager memory configuration settings configured > in > >>> the > >>> > > > effective flink-conf.yaml, right? Does this mean that you have > >>> > explicitly > >>> > > > removed `jobmanager.heap.size: 1024m` from the default > >>> configuration? > >>> > If > >>> > > > this is the case, then I believe it was more of an > unintentional > >>> > artifact > >>> > > > that it worked before and it has been corrected now so that one > >>> needs > >>> > to > >>> > > > specify the memory of the JM process explicitly. Do you think > it > >>> would > >>> > > help > >>> > > > to explicitly state this in the release notes? > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Cheers, > >>> > > > Till > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 7:01 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Thanks for preparing another RC! > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > As mentioned in the previous RC thread, it would be super > >> helpful > >>> if > >>> > > the > >>> > > > > release notes that are part of the documentation can be > included > >>> [1]. > >>> > > > It's > >>> > > > > a significant time-saver to have read those first. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > I found one more non-backward compatible change that would be > >>> worth > >>> > > > > addressing/mentioning: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > It is now necessary to configure the jobmanager heap size in > >>> > > > > flink-conf.yaml (with either jobmanager.heap.size > >>> > > > > or jobmanager.memory.heap.size). Why would I not want to do > that > >>> > > anyways? > >>> > > > > Well, we set it dynamically for a cluster deployment via the > >>> > > > > flinkk8soperator, but the container image can also be used > for > >>> > testing > >>> > > > with > >>> > > > > local mode (./bin/jobmanager.sh start-foreground local). That > >> will > >>> > fail > >>> > > > if > >>> > > > > the heap wasn't configured and that's how I noticed it. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Thanks, > >>> > > > > Thomas > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > [1] > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.11/release-notes/flink-1.11.html > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:18 AM Zhijiang < > >>> wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com > >>> > > > > .invalid> > >>> > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Hi everyone, > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #4 for the > >>> version > >>> > > > > 1.11.0, > >>> > > > > > as follows: > >>> > > > > > [ ] +1, Approve the release > >>> > > > > > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific > >>> > comments) > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > The complete staging area is available for your review, > which > >>> > > includes: > >>> > > > > > * JIRA release notes [1], > >>> > > > > > * the official Apache source release and binary convenience > >>> > releases > >>> > > to > >>> > > > > be > >>> > > > > > deployed to dist.apache.org [2], which are signed with the > >> key > >>> > with > >>> > > > > > fingerprint 2DA85B93244FDFA19A6244500653C0A2CEA00D0E [3], > >>> > > > > > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central > Repository > >>> [4], > >>> > > > > > * source code tag "release-1.11.0-rc4" [5], > >>> > > > > > * website pull request listing the new release and adding > >>> > > announcement > >>> > > > > > blog post [6]. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted > by > >>> > > majority > >>> > > > > > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Thanks, > >>> > > > > > Release Manager > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > [1] > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12346364 > >>> > > > > > [2] > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.11.0-rc4/ > >>> > > > > > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS > >>> > > > > > [4] > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1377/ > >>> > > > > > [5] > >>> > https://github.com/apache/flink/releases/tag/release-1.11.0-rc4 > >>> > > > > > [6] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/352 > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >
