Great work everyone. We are really close on this. We have everything in except for https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719, but there has been no movement there, so I will try and put up an alternative pull request.
Also We noticed that a recent merge broke some things fairly badly so we need to get https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2839 in, but that is just a matter of waiting a few more hours for the 24 hours to be up. Great work everyone, hopefully we will have an RC up for a vote a little over a day from now. Thanks, Bobby P.S. Taylor, You have put up all of the release candidates in the past and done all of the votes for them. If you want to continue the trend that is fine with me, but if not I am happy to do it, but I might have to bug you to be sure I do it all correctly. On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:13 AM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote: > I think we are really close on this and I would love to see us get an RC > out ASAP. > > We are still missing some things that Stig called out. > > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2719 has a build issue, not sure if > we need to make an alternative patch or not. > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2800 has a newer alternative patch > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2836 please take a look. > https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2805 has some merge conflicts > currently, but everyone please take a chance to review it. > > Thanks, > > Bobby > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:57 AM Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have sought the name of client artifact from some of streaming >> frameworks. Please refer below: >> >> Spark: spark-core >> Kafka: kafka-clients >> Flink: flink-clients >> Heron: heron-api >> >> Based on divergence, I don't see the reason "storm-core" is the only name >> which avoid confusion. Actually, if my understanding is right, we need to >> let end users including "storm-server" when running local cluster, then >> "storm-core" vs "storm-server" would give real confusion. I guess we >> already discussed about the naming, and given that we don't rename it we >> are OK with renamed artifacts. >> >> 2018년 9월 14일 (금) 오후 4:07, Roshan Naik <roshan_n...@yahoo.com.invalid>님이 >> 작성: >> >> > 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 >> > <gme...@oath.com.INVALID> 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 <gme...@oath.com> 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 <ar...@apache.org> >> 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 < >> > stigdoess...@gmail.com> >> > >> 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 < >> > >> > avermeerber...@gmail.com>: >> > >> > >> > >> > > +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 >> > >> > > <kpa...@oath.com.invalid> 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 < >> > ptgo...@gmail.com >> > >> > >> > >> > > 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 < >> bo...@apache.org> >> > >> > 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 < >> > >> kabh...@gmail.com> >> > >> > > 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 < >> > >> > > > > >> avermeerber...@gmail.com>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 < >> ar...@apache.org >> > >: >> > >> > > > > >>>> +1 to get it out soon. >> > >> > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > >>>> On 7/10/18, 11:52 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" < >> ptgo...@gmail.com >> > > >> > >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > >>>>> +1 Sounds good to me. >> > >> > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > >>>>> -Taylor >> > >> > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 2:18 AM, Jungtaek Lim < >> > >> kabh...@gmail.com> >> > >> > > > > 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) >> > >> > > > > >>>>> >> > >> > > > > >>>> >> > >> > > > > >>> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >
