I just merged in the last outstanding JIRA/pull request. I think we are good for a 2.0.0 RC.
Thanks, Bobby On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:33 PM Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 <ptgo...@gmail.com> 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 <bo...@apache.org> 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 <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) >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
