I’ll put together a release candidate. -Taylor
> On Sep 20, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Bobby Evans <bo...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
