I’m hitting lots of issues with SNAPSHOT dependencies (as I expected). This is internal to storm’s pom structure and likely the result of all the module reorganization. I’ll probably create a temporary release branch so I can create a pull request for the necessary changes back to master, but continue with the release candidate.
-Taylor > On Sep 20, 2018, at 3:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
