Ah OK. It doesn't look like blocker if it is not by default. Still OK to port back to 1.1.2 since it is clear and critical bug about newly introduced feature. On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 at 2:28 PM Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoess...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, I'll take a look at the issues later today. > > I don't think 2541 is a blocker for 1.1.2. Manual partition assignment was > only added as an option in 1.1.0 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2236, and becomes the default > option in 1.2.0. In 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 the spout can start and run with the > original Subscription implementation. It's only unable to start if the user > configures the spout to use the new Subscription implementation. I'd be > okay with pulling it back to 1.1.2, since the changed APIs are on the class > that doesn't work. > > 2017-08-28 5:17 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com>: > > > Looks like there're no issues to add to Storm 1.0.5. No need to have epic > > issue for that, just need to prepare release phase. > > > > While skimming Stig's proposed list, STORM-2541 looks like a 'blocker' > for > > 1.1.2 given that its description - Spout is unable to start - and the bug > > affects 1.1.0 and above. (if the spout just unable to start, let's modify > > its priority to at least critical, even blocker) > > Unless we have a workaround to not breaking public API, we have no choice > > to pull the breaking change to 1.1.2. > > > > I couldn't decide for other issues about storm-kafka-client. I just > created > > epic issues for 1.1.2 and 1.2.0, and ask a favor of assigning issues to > > either 1.1.2 (they'll go with 1.2.0) or 1.2.0 epic issue. Stig, could you > > help me to do this? > > > > 1.1.2: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2709 > > 1.2.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2710 > > > > For me there seems no other pending issues on three releases except > > storm-kafka-client things. Please share to this thread if someone found > > any. > > > > Thanks, > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > 2017년 8월 28일 (월) 오전 6:03, Alexandre Vermeerbergen < > > avermeerber...@gmail.com>님이 > > 작성: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > If https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 can't be available > > > before Storm 1.2.0 then I volunteer to feedback on Storm 1.2.0 Release > > > Candidate as soon as it'll be available. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Alexandre > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-27 22:59 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoess...@gmail.com > >: > > > > > > > Yes, releasing 1.2.0 soon would be a better solution I think, ideally > > we > > > > could include all the issues I listed above. We should probably get > > 1.0.5 > > > > and 1.1.2 out first though since 2682 seems pretty crippling from the > > > > description. > > > > > > > > I misremembered earlier, I don't think we've broken the > > > storm-kafka-client > > > > API for a while, we've just deprecated a lot of stuff, except for > > > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2223 which broke an API that > > > wouldn't > > > > have been possible to use anyway. > > > > > > > > 2017-08-27 1:11 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > IMHO, we still have a chance to respect semver via planning release > > > 1.2.0 > > > > > sooner. > > > > > > > > > > 1.2.0 will bring some other side of improvements as well as > > > > > storm-kafka-client (state backend, and ES connector, and so on), > so I > > > > think > > > > > it's worth to. Storm 1.1.0 was released over 4 months ago, so I > don't > > > > feel > > > > > too hasty to discuss about 1.2.0. > > > > > > > > > > Non-bug type issues resolved as 1.2.0 are below: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > > > > > 3D%20STORM%20and%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)% > > > > > 20and%20resolution%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Fixed%2C%20Done) > > > > > %20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20and%20fixVersion%20not% > > > > > 20in%20(1.0.0%2C%201.0.1%2C%201.0.2%2C%201.0.3%2C%201.0.4% > > > > > 2C%201.1.0%2C%201.1.1%2C%201.1.2)%20and%20type%20!%3D%20Bug > > > > > > > > > > The only thing is how much the release phase requires efforts from > > both > > > > > release manager and community participating to verify the release, > > > given > > > > > that I already proposed two releases. Taylor has been volunteering > > the > > > > > heavy load of releasing all the time, so maybe need to hear his > > opinion > > > > > about this. > > > > > > > > > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > > > > > > 2017년 8월 27일 (일) 오전 6:12, Stig Rohde Døssing < > stigdoess...@gmail.com > > > >님이 > > > > > 작성: > > > > > > > > > > > Jungtaek, > > > > > > I agree that we should provide a less buggy storm-kafka-client > > module > > > > as > > > > > > soon as possible. I'm happy to ignore semver for it for a few > > > versions, > > > > > > since it still seems pretty common that we have to break the API > to > > > > fix a > > > > > > bug or unintended behavior. If we're putting 2648 into 1.1.2, we > > > should > > > > > > also pull back a lot of the fixes targeted for 1.2.0. The list is > > > > > > > > > > > > resolved, but only applied to 1.x not 1.1.x > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642 > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2640 > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2548 > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541 > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512 > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2506 > > > > > > > > > > > > pending, fix available but needs review, then 1.x backport > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675 > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2666 > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2607 > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549 > > > > > > > > > > > > I may have missed some, others can supplement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexandre, > > > > > > If we're ignoring semver for storm-kafka-client I don't mind > > putting > > > > 2648 > > > > > > in 1.1.2. I just wanted to suggest how you can avoid being > blocked > > by > > > > > 2648 > > > > > > until there's a proper release of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-26 15:12 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stig, > > > > > > > I also would like to provide storm-kafka-client module as > stable > > as > > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > Are STORM-2549 and STORM-2675 only bug issues on > > > storm-kafka-client? > > > > If > > > > > > we > > > > > > > have other issues as well, let's enumerate them also. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexandre, > > > > > > > STORM-2648 looks like an improvement, not a bug fix as the type > > of > > > > > issue > > > > > > > is. storm-kafka-client is fairly new so personally I think we > > could > > > > > make > > > > > > > the decision to ignore semver for the module, but needs > consensus > > > > > anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017년 8월 26일 (토) 오후 8:47, Alexandre Vermeerbergen < > > > > > > > avermeerber...@gmail.com>님이 > > > > > > > 작성: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Stig, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For production, we try no to use PR branches but only stable > / > > > > > > > officialized > > > > > > > > versions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Kafka 0.1.0.0, I agree that we can stay with old > > Storm > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > client because Kafka 0.9 producers & consumers are compatible > > > with > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > 0.10 brokers : this is precisely when we current do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But using 0.9 Kafka client libs against Kafka 0.10 has a > > > > performance > > > > > > cost > > > > > > > > (because in 0.10 there are new attributes to messages, and > > Kafka > > > > > Broker > > > > > > > > 0.10 does on-the-fly adaptation of Kafka < 0.10 client to its > > new > > > > > > > > protocol), and the team who provides us with Kafka Broker > 0.10 > > > > > clusters > > > > > > > > urges us to use authenticated Kafka ports, which isn't > possible > > > > with > > > > > > Kafa > > > > > > > > clients < 0.10 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW I understand that Storm 1.1.1 isn't appropriate for > > > production > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682, so > we're > > > > quite > > > > > > > > interested in Storm 1.1.2 if in addition it can include fix > for > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2648 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope it clarifies, > > > > > > > > Alexandre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-26 12:47 GMT+02:00 Stig Rohde Døssing < > > > > > stigdoess...@gmail.com > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting out a new release for fixing 2682 would be good I > > > think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding other fixes that would be good to get in, I think > > it > > > > > would > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > good to get > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2549 > > , > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2675, > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2231 fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexandre if you are blocked by STORM-2648, why not build > > > > > > > > > storm-kafka-client off of the PR branch? Also I believe > that > > > > > > > storm-kafka > > > > > > > > > only becomes incompatible with Kafka 1.0.0, it still works > > for > > > me > > > > > in > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > on an 0.11 broker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Vermeerbergen < > > > > > > > > > avermeerber...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you please include https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > > > > > > jira/browse/STORM-2648 > > > > > > > > > > in upcoming Storm 1.1.2 release : we need to have latency > > etc > > > > > stats > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > using Storm Kafka Client spout in autocommit mode, not > > having > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > > > > is blocking us from moving from old Storm-Kafka lib > > (limited > > > to > > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > > 0.9.x) to Storm-Kafka-Client lib (required for Kafka > 0.10.x > > > > > > > > > compatibility). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Alexandre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-25 9:26 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim < > kabh...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We received a bug report (STORM-2682 > > > > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2682>) on > > > Storm > > > > > > 1.0.4 > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > 1.1.1 which prevents Storm cluster from update. > > Personally > > > it > > > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > pretty critical, and hopefully it is fixed now. > > > > > > > > > > > So maybe we would like to have another bug fix releases > > > > quickly > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > affected 1.x version lines. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also please enumerate the issues if you would want to > > > include > > > > > any > > > > > > > bug > > > > > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > > > > issues to the new bug fix releases, so that we can > create > > > > epic > > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > track them to make releases happening sooner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
