+1 for RC3 and minor release with recent major/critical bug fixes in few weeks time. Most of the storm-kafka-client issues are resolved.
Hugo, You may want to vote again as you have changed your opinion mentioned in your earlier mail. Taylor, It seems Hugo said this issue can be considered as critical instead of Blocker in earlier mail as mentioned below. >> Since this is an external module connector perhaps we can get this fix onto a minor release instead of being a blocker. I will update the JIRA accordingly. Thanks, Satish. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm OK to continue release process if we plan to do bugfix release sooner. > (say, within 1 month, or just after all opened storm-kafka-client issues > will be addressed.) > > We have other storm-kafka-client issues which are all major or critical but > not included to RC3 as well. Having them in 1.1.0 is ideal but for other > side I don't want to see 1.1.0 dragged any longer. Explaining "known issue" > in release note would be sufficient, and 1.1.1 can be released sooner for > resolving them. > > If we really would like to cancel RC3, I propose that we announce "code > freeze" for 1.x branch (via sending mail to dev@), and address only issues > on epic, and restart RC ASAP. > > tl;dr. I'm still +1 for the RC3, regardless of documentation about changes > on binary dist. and storm-kafka-client issues. > > Thanks, > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > 2017년 3월 24일 (금) 오전 4:53, Harsha Chintalapani <st...@harsha.io>님이 작성: > > > I propose that we continue with the release and get this patch in next > > minor release (probably 1.1.1?). Users doesn't need to upgrade their > > cluster to get this change > > so I would say this is not a show-stopper for the release. > > > > -Harsha > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:18 AM P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hugo, now that you are a PMC member your vote is binding. > > > > > > While releases can’t be vetoed (a release vote needs at least three +1s > > > and more +1s than -1s), it’s typical to take negative votes under > serious > > > consideration. > > > > > > So considering Hugo’s -1 vote, do we want cancel in order to include > the > > > proposed fix? It would also give us a chance to update the connector > > > documentation regarding location of binary artifacts. > > > > > > -Taylor > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Hugo Da Cruz Louro < > > hlo...@hortonworks.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > -1 (non binding) > > > > > > > > This blocker bug was just reported - > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2432 > > > > Here is the fix: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2027 > > > > > > > > I consider that this is a blocker bug because if the user choses > > > UNCOMITTED_LATEST first poll strategy, no data gets polled at all. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Hugo > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Harsha Chintalapani <st...@harsha.io > > > <mailto:st...@harsha.io>> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 for documenting and releasing. > > > > -Harsha > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:04 AM Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com > > <mailto: > > > kabh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 to the latter. > > > > > > > > I'm in favor of documenting the change to release note, and also docs > > so > > > > that website can be reflected. The users who are affected to the > change > > > > wouldn't be much, since using dependency management tool (Maven, > > Gradle, > > > > and so on) has been recommended for creating topology jar. > > > > > > > > For me it's not a blocker for release. > > > > > > > > Arun, I initiated another thread to discuss moving non-connectors to > > the > > > > top directory. > > > > Could you cast your vote? If you are still not satisfied with > excluding > > > > jars you can cast -0 or even -1. > > > > > > > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > > > > 2017년 3월 23일 (목) 오후 10:43, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com > <mailto: > > > ptgo...@gmail.com>>님이 작성: > > > > > > > > Do we want to cancel this RC in order to better document the changes, > > or > > > > will documenting it in the release announcement suffice for now > > (provided > > > > documentation is added for subsequent releases)? > > > > > > > > I’m partial to the latter, but am open to others’ opinions. > > > > > > > > -Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID > > > <mailto:ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 I built form the tag and ran using a single node cluster. > > > > The examples and external components are excluded because they are > > > > huge. Because of shading they we distribute the same copy of them > > > > multiple > > > > times. > > > > I agree with Alexandre. We should document this change better, > because > > > > it is confusing for people to get a release that used to have these > in > > > > it, > > > > but does not any more. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Bobby > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, 10:46:38 PM CDT, Arun Mahadevan < > > > > ar...@apache.org<mailto:ar...@apache.org>> wrote:Verified the > > > artifacts. Compiled examples and > > > > ran > > > > some sample topologies. Looks good. > > > > > > > > BTW, why are the external modules excluded from the binaries (the > .zip > > > > and .tar.gz). Isn’t it better if the binary distribution includes > them? > > > > Maybe it was already discussed but I am missing it. The sql directory > > > > however seems to include the jars so it looks inconsistent. > > > > > > > > - Arun > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/22/17, 12:56 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgo...@apache.org<mailto: > > > ptgo...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is a call to vote on releasing Apache Storm 1.1.0 (rc3) > > > > > > > > Full list of changes in this release: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=blob_ > plain;f=CHANGELOG.md;h=68fbab3c4f91359bd397d93a157830542839b002;hb= > e40d213de7067f7d3aa4d4992b81890d8ed6ff31 > > > > > > > > The tag/commit to be voted upon is v1.1.0: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=tree;h= > 7fa62404feb6b86b3143c851b46237580720eb6b;hb=e40d213de7067f7d3aa4d4992b8189 > 0d8ed6ff31 > > > > > > > > The source archive being voted upon can be found here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-1. > 1.0-rc3/apache-storm-1.1.0-src.tar.gz > > > > > > > > Other release files, signatures and digests can be found here: > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-1.1.0-rc3/ > > > > > > > > The release artifacts are signed with the following key: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=blob_ > plain;f=KEYS;hb=22b832708295fa2c15c4f3c70ac0d2bc6fded4bd > > > > > > > > The Nexus staging repository for this release is: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > orgapachestorm-1047 > > > > > > > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Storm 1.1.0. > > > > > > > > When voting, please list the actions taken to verify the release. > > > > > > > > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Storm 1.1.0 > > > > [ ] 0 No opinion > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > > > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who contributed to this release. > > > > > > > > -Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
