I've cherry picked the following issues from 1.x to 1.1.x https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2642 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2541 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2512
I've attached the unresolved issues to the epics I think make sense. The other issues all break or deprecate parts of the API in some way. I'm a little unsure about 2675, so I put it in 1.2.0. 2017-08-28 7:35 GMT+02:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com>: > 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) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
