Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
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 wrote: > > I’ll put together a release candidate. > > -Taylor > >> On Sep 20, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Bobby Evans 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
I’ll put together a release candidate. -Taylor > On Sep 20, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Bobby Evans 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 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 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 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 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 >>> 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 >>> 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 >>> 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 >>> 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.
Re: Regarding releasing Apache Storm 2.0.0
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 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 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 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 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 >> 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 > >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 >> 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 >> 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 >> >>> wrote: >> > >> >> +1 for releasing 2.0. >> >> >> >> May be the RC can
[GitHub] storm pull request #2843: STORM-3230: Add in sync if key not found
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2843 ---
[GitHub] storm pull request #2842: STORM-3229: Add in better error reporting
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2842 ---
