Sounds good. I just filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-3230 and I'll be putting up a pull request shortly. I would like to see it in before a 2.x release, but it is kind of minor because ZK has to really be overloaded to hit this, and we tend to recover after a while.
I'll look at getting the rest in ASAP. Thanks, Bobby On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:54 PM P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >
