+1 (binding) Checks:
- built from sources -verified signatures & no binaries in the source archive - run all tests locally (mvn clean install) here I had a couple of problems: * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18476 * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18470 * UnsignedTypeConversionITCase failed because it requires libncursed5 installed None of the issues should be blockers imo as all three fail because the tests assume certain configuration of the environment. - started local cluster & run a couple of table examples the ChangelogSocketExample did not work for me. I think it would make sense to only bundle examples that work out of the box in the dist. Nevertheless as it is a new example in the release and it is only an example I would not the release because of it. (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18477) - started sql-client and run a few very simple queries - verified a couple of license files: Here I have more of a question. If we bundle an artifact with a classifier. Shall we include the classifier as part of the entry in LICENSE file? We bundle org.apache.orc:orc-core:jar:nohive:1.4.3 in flink-sql-connector-hive-1.2.2, but in the LICENSE file we list it without the nohive classifier. Side note. We do bundle some python files as part of the distribution. I have not seen anyone trying that out in the thread so far. Shall we ask somebody more familiar with the python module to check that? Best, Dawid On 02/07/2020 20:37, Kostas Kloudas wrote: > Hi all, > > As far as the issue that Chesnay mentioned that leads to a "Caused by: > org.apache.flink.api.common.InvalidProgramException:" for DataSet > examples with print() collect() or count() as sink, this was a > semi-intensional side-effect of the application mode. Before, in these > cases, the output was simply ignored. Now we have the same behavior as > in the "detached" mode. I already opened a PR for the release notes > (sorry for not doing it earlier although this was a known change in > behavior, as mentioned it in the PR here > https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/11460 ) and I will merge it > today. > > Cheers, > Kostas > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:07 PM Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: >> +1 (binding) >> >> 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 >> - deployed Flink on YARN on Azure HDInsight (which uses Hadoop 3.1.1) >> - Reported some tiny log sanity issue: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18474 >> - Wordcount against HDFS works >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:07 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Zhijiang, >>> >>> The performance degradation manifests in backpressure which leads to >>> growing backlog in the source. I switched a few times between 1.10 and 1.11 >>> and the behavior is consistent. >>> >>> The DAG is: >>> >>> KinesisConsumer -> (Flat Map, Flat Map, Flat Map) -------- forward >>> ---------> KinesisProducer >>> >>> Parallelism: 160 >>> No shuffle/rebalance. >>> >>> Checkpointing config: >>> >>> Checkpointing Mode Exactly Once >>> Interval 10s >>> Timeout 10m 0s >>> Minimum Pause Between Checkpoints 10s >>> Maximum Concurrent Checkpoints 1 >>> Persist Checkpoints Externally Enabled (delete on cancellation) >>> >>> State backend: rocksdb (filesystem leads to same symptoms) >>> Checkpoint size is tiny (500KB) >>> >>> An interesting difference to another job that I had upgraded successfully >>> is the low checkpointing interval. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Thomas >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:02 PM 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
