Happy to see consensus in moving fwd with 2.0 soon.
I will try to get a minor patch (STORM-3205) within 24 hours ... as it seems
like it has potential to deliver a decent perf boost and energy savings.
One thing I am hoping we can address before releasing Storm 2 is... to fix the
naming of the storm-client.jar. Its such a core jar really, it should have
been really called storm-core or something like that... but unfortunately we
already have another jar with that name. Retaining the 'client' name for this
new jar would be confusing and give wrong impressions to users and any new devs
IMO.
-roshan
On Thursday, September 13, 2018, 2:12:40 PM PDT, Govind Menon
<[email protected]> wrote:
STORM-3217 and STORM-3221 have been fixed - +1 from me for 2.0 RC.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:01 AM Govind Menon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There are some regressions that I introduced as part of STORM-1311 which
> I'm working on as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3217
> and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3221. These should be
> fixed before a 2.x release
>
> I have code working on the Yahoo internal branch and should have PRs up
> for them in community soon.
>
> I apologize for slowing things up.
>
> Thanks,
> Govind.
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM Arun Mahadevan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +1 for releasing 2.0.
>>
>> May be the RC can be cut once critical patches are merged.
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 10:28, Stig Rohde Døssing <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 to cut an RC.
>> >
>> > Here are a couple of PRs that could maybe go in
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719
>> > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 (this one requires some
>> changes,
>> > but we should be able to fix it pretty quickly)
>> > also would like to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805
>> reviewed,
>> > it might change some public methods.
>> >
>> > Other than that, we should try to remove as much deprecated code as we
>> can
>> > before release
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> >
>> > Den man. 10. sep. 2018 kl. 21.59 skrev Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > [email protected]>:
>> >
>> > > +1 for an Storm 2.0 as soon as possible, let's jump into the future :)
>> > > Le lun. 10 sept. 2018 à 21:50, Kishorkumar Patil
>> > > <[email protected]> a écrit :
>> > > >
>> > > > Looking into all issues reported under epic
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714 are
>> resolved/closed.
>> > I
>> > > > don't see any open issues/blockers at this point for going ahead
>> with
>> > 2.x
>> > > > release.
>> > > >
>> > > > I am +1 to 2.0 release.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > -Kishor
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I agree, and looking through the JIRAs against 2.0, I would say a
>> > > majority
>> > > > > of the ones marked critical are not critical.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I’m +1 on moving forward with a 2.0 release, but will give others
>> > time
>> > > to
>> > > > > respond with any JIRAs they think should be included.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
>> > > absolutely
>> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up
>> but
>> > > if
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it
>> in,
>> > so
>> > > we
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Agree. We can always branch off the release tag/commit.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Taylor
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It has been nearly a month since this was originally sent out,
>> and
>> > > this
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > not the first of these kinds of emails to go out about a 2.0.0
>> > > release.
>> > > > > I
>> > > > > > think we have made a lot of really good progress on getting
>> ready
>> > > for a
>> > > > > 2.0
>> > > > > > release, and I really would like to see it happen before another
>> > > month
>> > > > > > passes.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We have a 2.0 based deploy in some of our staging clusters,
>> > currently
>> > > > > > following the master branch with a little that is Yahoo
>> specific on
>> > > top.
>> > > > > We
>> > > > > > would like to start pushing towards production with it soon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There are a few issues that we are aware of.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20STORM%20AND%
>> > > > > 20affectedVersion%20in%20(2.0.0)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
>> > > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There are no blockers still open, and only 4 issues listed as
>> > > critical.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If others have any open issues that feel need to be addressed
>> prior
>> > > to a
>> > > > > > 2.0.0 release please respond to this with the JIRA number. I
>> would
>> > > like
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > set a goal/tentative date of Sep 17th (one week from today) to
>> put
>> > > > > together
>> > > > > > a release candidate for a 2.0.0 release, and unless there are
>> major
>> > > > > > blockers that show up I think we can do it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Bobby Evans
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > p.s. I don't want to create branch-2.x or branch-2.0.x until
>> > > absolutely
>> > > > > > necessary, I don't see any major features with pull requests up
>> but
>> > > if
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > do run across one please send something out before merging it
>> in,
>> > so
>> > > we
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > set up the branches properly at that time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:47 PM Jungtaek Lim <
>> [email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> I'd like to say first, thanks Stig to take up remaining issues.
>> > > Thanks
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > >> his efforts, according to the epic, we have only one major
>> issue
>> > > left:
>> > > > > >> porting UI to Java [1], and pull request [2] is available for
>> > that.
>> > > > > >> There're another issues [3] [4] targeting 2.0.0 (since it is
>> > > backward
>> > > > > >> incompatible) but they are all about removing deprecated
>> things,
>> > so
>> > > > > easier
>> > > > > >> to be reviewed and make decisions.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Once we have a patch for that now, IMHO it would be good to
>> review
>> > > and
>> > > > > ship
>> > > > > >> in 2.0.0 if it wouldn't take a month or so. We could do some
>> > sanity
>> > > > > tests
>> > > > > >> in parallel, so waiting for UI port would not block much time
>> on
>> > > > > releasing
>> > > > > >> Storm 2.0.0.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1311
>> > > > > >> 2. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2752
>> > > > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2947
>> > > > > >> 4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3156
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> 2018년 7월 11일 (수) 오전 5:12, Alexandre Vermeerbergen <
>> > > > > >> [email protected]>님이
>> > > > > >> 작성:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> +1 would love to try it when an RC is avail!
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Alexandre Vermeerbergen
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> 2018-07-10 21:15 GMT+02:00 Arun Mahadevan <[email protected]>:
>> > > > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> -Taylor
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim <
>> [email protected]>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Hi devs,
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> I hopefully have a time to sort out issues regarding Storm
>> > > 2.0.0 and
>> > > > > >>> link
>> > > > > >>>>>> to epic issue.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2714
>> > > > > >>>>>> (require login to Apache JIRA to see issues in epic)
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> I guess we are close to the release, mostly left reviewing
>> > some
>> > > > > >> pending
>> > > > > >>>>>> pull requests, and some manual sanity tests.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Given that master branch is relatively stabilized for
>> Travis
>> > CI
>> > > > > >> build,
>> > > > > >>> as
>> > > > > >>>>>> well as style check and Java port make codebase better (at
>> > > least for
>> > > > > >>> me), I
>> > > > > >>>>>> would really want to make Storm 2.0.0 released sooner than
>> > > later,
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > >>> rely
>> > > > > >>>>>> majorly on 2.x version line.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> So I would propose dev folks to concentrate on remaining
>> tasks
>> > > for
>> > > > > >>> Storm
>> > > > > >>>>>> 2.0.0 till we announce release. WDYT?
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > >>>>>> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
