Thanks for the input Bobby and Nathan. I’ll revert it there as well unless anyone proposes a compelling reason not to.
What are your thoughts on moving forward with the 0.9.3 release? -Taylor On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Nathan Marz <nat...@nathanmarz.com> wrote: > I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's > going on. > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone decides >> to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at least >> as far as we know, works. >> >> - Bobby >> >> >> On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz < >> ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it >> in master. >> >> For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it >> and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to >> hear what other people think. >> >> In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the >> master and 0.9.3 branches: >> >> * STORM-558 change "swap!" to "reset!" to fix assignment-versions in >> supervisor >> * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8 >> >> What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release? >> >> -Taylor >> >> >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID> >> wrote: >> >>> Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small >> not totally necessary. +1 for reverting. >>> - Bobby >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting >>> this. >>> Thanks, >>> Harsha >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: >>>> I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue. >>>> >>>> I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to >>>> do so please do. >>>> >>>> I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause. >>>> >>>> -Taylor >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Agree with Nathan. >>>>> Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of >> STORM-350. >>>>> >>>>> 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz <nat...@nathanmarz.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it >> seems >>>>>> the >>>>>> upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should >> be >>>>>> reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha <st...@harsha.io> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am +1 releasing 0.9.3 >>>>>>> +1 on including STORM-555. >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Harsha >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: >>>>>>>> I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with >> what is >>>>>>>> currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release >>>>>>>> (skipping the unofficial rc2). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be >>>>>>>> eligible for merging early next week. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Taylor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Email had 1 attachment: >>>>>>>> + signature.asc >>>>>>>> 1k (application/pgp-signature) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Twitter: @nathanmarz >>>>>> http://nathanmarz.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Name : 임 정택 >>>>> Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net >>>>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior >>>>> LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Twitter: @nathanmarz > http://nathanmarz.com
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
