> On Jul 25, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > > I believe I ported back complete set of bugfixes to the 1.1.x-branch when I > created 1.1.x-branch. > > 1.x-branch has some new features after 1.1.0, even also has backward > incompatible change: Redis state changed to binary. I included migration > script on it but still don't think it is bugfix.
Is this a public API change or only internal? We've avoided it in the past by tying external components to storm releases, we can always change that, though it complicates releases. > > Taylor, which patches (only bugfixes) are important and not ported back to > 1.1.x-branch? If they're clearly about bugfix and possible to be ported > back, isn't it better to do that? Some fairly obvious ones that didn't feel specific to 1.2. Some are pretty critical. > > If they're not bugfixes but have feeling that we should include the release > ASAP, let's enumerate in another discussion shortly and apply them to > 1.x-branch when consensus has been made. We can certainly cut a new release for 1.1.1. Like I said earlier, I chose not to delete that branch so we could return to it if necessary. > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) -Taylor > On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 at 5:17 AM Stig Rohde Døssing <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I ran into https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2659, which is a >> regression compared to 1.0.x, but not compared to 1.1.0. I think it would >> be nice to get fixed. >> >> 2017-07-25 20:59 GMT+02:00 Bobby Evans <[email protected]>: >> >>> We could do a 1.1.2 release sooner if needed. Technically any committer >>> can call for a release at any point in time. If there is a reason to do >> a >>> release (like an important fix for a critical component) then we can do >> it. >>> >>> >>> - Bobby >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2017, 1:48:07 PM CDT, Alexandre Vermeerbergen < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I guess 1.1.2 is going to be a few months away from now, so we'll have to >>> go with our own basic Kafka 0.10 Spout in the meantime... >>> >>> You can discard my previous vote, we'd need to at least download 1.1.1 rc >>> and give it a try to make an objective vote. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen >>> >>> 2017-07-25 19:38 GMT+02:00 P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Hi Alexandre, >>>> >>>> STORM-2648 couldn’t be included because there is no patch available for >>> it >>>> yet. Once there is a patch available, it can go into the next release, >> so >>>> it’s certainly possible for it to be available in 1.1.2. >>>> >>>> -Taylor >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 25, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Alexandre Vermeerbergen < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> -1 (non binding) >>>>> >>>>> Maybe it's a bit selfish, but I really count on >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 being part of Storm >>>> 1.1.1, >>>>> because we have a requirement to use Kafka 0.10 consumer in >> topologies >>>>> requiring at most once behavior. >>>>> >>>>> We understood that we could use storm-kafka-client with autocommit, >> but >>>>> then we're missing ack/fails and complete latency. >>>>> >>>>> We know that we could by-pass this limitation by implementing our own >>>> Kafka >>>>> 0.10 spout, but if possible it would be great to have Storm 1.1.1's >>> storm >>>>> kafka client cover the need of "at most once" requirements. >>>>> >>>>> Would it be possible to have this STORM-2648 to be part of 1.1.1 ? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2017-07-25 18:24 GMT+02:00 P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes. There were a number of important patches present in 1.x-branch >>> that >>>>>> were not in 1.1.x-branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> When I tried to merge 1.x-branch to 1.1.x-branch, I ran into >>> unexpected >>>>>> conflicts. I thought about deleting 1.1.x-branch and recreating it, >>> but >>>>>> decided against it, not wanting lose changes there that we might >> want >>> to >>>>>> keep in case we wanted to revisit the contents of that branch. In >> the >>>> end I >>>>>> decided to cut the release from 1.x-branch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jungtaek, I believe you created 1.1.x-branch… Do you know why/how it >>>>>> diverged? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Taylor >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 25, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing < >>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it on purpose that this is cut from 1.x-branch and not >>> 1.1.x-branch? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-07-25 17:09 GMT+02:00 P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a call to vote on releasing Apache Storm 1.1.1 (rc1) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Full list of changes in this release: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=blob_ >>>>>>>> plain;f=CHANGELOG.md;hb=88f0b8a45553ea960164fab18c736a5cdbae8e58 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The tag/commit to be voted upon is v1.1.1: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=tree;h= >>>>>>>> 89bf57855806d84dba8d9b7fe6e76f9074a6aa19;hb= >>>>>> 88f0b8a45553ea960164fab18c736a >>>>>>>> 5cdbae8e58 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The source archive being voted upon can be found here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-1. >>>>>>>> 1.1-rc1/apache-storm-1.1.1-src.tar.gz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Other release files, signatures and digests can be found here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-1. >>> 1.1-rc1/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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-1049 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Storm 1.1.1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 1.1.1 >>>>>>>> [ ] 0 No opinion >>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who contributed to this release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Taylor >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
