I’m ready to release when everything is ready to go. Since we haven’t released from the 2.0-based master branch, I wouldn’t be surprised if I run into release issues, but I’ll slog through it.
-Taylor > On Sep 18, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>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 >>>> <[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) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
