Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
STORM-350 has been reverted in the master branch as well. -Taylor On Nov 17, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: +1 on reverting on master too and like to see 0.9.3 out :). Thanks, Harsha On Mon, Nov 17, 2014, at 01:55 PM, Bobby Evans wrote: I would love to see 0.9.3 out. - Bobby On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:55 PM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the input Bobby and Nathan. I’ll revert it there as well unless anyone proposes a compelling reason not to. What are your thoughts on moving forward with the 0.9.3 release? -Taylor On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Nathan Marz nat...@nathanmarz.com wrote: I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's going on. On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid wrote: I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone decides to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at least as far as we know, works. - Bobby On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it in master. For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to hear what other people think. In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the master and 0.9.3 branches: * STORM-558 change swap! to reset! to fix assignment-versions in supervisor * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8 What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release? -Taylor On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID wrote: Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small not totally necessary. +1 for reverting. - Bobby On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting this. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue. I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to do so please do. I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause. -Taylor On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 kabh...@gmail.com wrote: Agree with Nathan. Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350. 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz nat...@nathanmarz.com: -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems the upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: I am +1 releasing 0.9.3 +1 on including STORM-555. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release (skipping the unofficial rc2). The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be eligible for merging early next week. Thoughts? -Taylor Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Twitter: @nathanmarz http://nathanmarz.com -- Name : 임 정택 Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior -- Twitter: @nathanmarz http://nathanmarz.com signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small not totally necessary. +1 for reverting. - Bobby On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting this. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue. I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to do so please do. I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause. -Taylor On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 kabh...@gmail.com wrote: Agree with Nathan. Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350. 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz nat...@nathanmarz.com: -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems the upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: I am +1 releasing 0.9.3 +1 on including STORM-555. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release (skipping the unofficial rc2). The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be eligible for merging early next week. Thoughts? -Taylor Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Twitter: @nathanmarz http://nathanmarz.com -- Name : 임 정택 Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it in master. For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to hear what other people think. In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the master and 0.9.3 branches: * STORM-558 change swap! to reset! to fix assignment-versions in supervisor * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8 What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release? -Taylor On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID wrote: Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small not totally necessary. +1 for reverting. - Bobby On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting this. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue. I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to do so please do. I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause. -Taylor On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 kabh...@gmail.com wrote: Agree with Nathan. Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350. 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz nat...@nathanmarz.com: -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems the upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: I am +1 releasing 0.9.3 +1 on including STORM-555. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release (skipping the unofficial rc2). The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be eligible for merging early next week. Thoughts? -Taylor Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Twitter: @nathanmarz http://nathanmarz.com -- Name : 임 정택 Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Thanks for the input Bobby and Nathan. I’ll revert it there as well unless anyone proposes a compelling reason not to. What are your thoughts on moving forward with the 0.9.3 release? -Taylor On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Nathan Marz nat...@nathanmarz.com wrote: I agree, it should be reverted on master until we can figure out what's going on. On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Evans ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid wrote: I would prefer to revert it on master too, just so that if anyone decides to use master storm, they have a chance of getting something that, at least as far as we know, works. - Bobby On Monday, November 17, 2014 2:58 PM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, I’ve reverted the commit in the 0.9.3 branch. I did not revert it in master. For master we can either choose to revert it there as well, or leave it and continue to look for a root cause. I’m open to either and would like to hear what other people think. In addition to the revert of STORM-350, I also merged the following to the master and 0.9.3 branches: * STORM-558 change swap! to reset! to fix assignment-versions in supervisor * STORM-555: Storm json response should set charset to UTF-8 What are everyone’s thoughts on proceeding with a 0.9.3 release? -Taylor On Nov 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Bobby Evans ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID wrote: Even if we cannot reproduce it in all cases, the change was rather small not totally necessary. +1 for reverting. - Bobby On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:23 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: I am able to reproduce this using Sean's topology. I am +1 on reverting this. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 06:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I agree completely. However, I've been unable to reproduce the issue. I think we need to get more eyes on this. If anyone has the resources to do so please do. I'm +1 for reverting, but I'd also like to have a root cause. -Taylor On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:10 PM, 임정택 kabh...@gmail.com wrote: Agree with Nathan. Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350. 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz nat...@nathanmarz.com: -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems the upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: I am +1 releasing 0.9.3 +1 on including STORM-555. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release (skipping the unofficial rc2). The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be eligible for merging early next week. Thoughts? -Taylor Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Twitter: @nathanmarz http://nathanmarz.com -- Name : 임 정택 Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior -- Twitter: @nathanmarz http://nathanmarz.com signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
I am +1 releasing 0.9.3 +1 on including STORM-555. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release (skipping the unofficial rc2). The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be eligible for merging early next week. Thoughts? -Taylor Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature)
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
-1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems the upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: I am +1 releasing 0.9.3 +1 on including STORM-555. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release (skipping the unofficial rc2). The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be eligible for merging early next week. Thoughts? -Taylor Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Twitter: @nathanmarz http://nathanmarz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Storm 0.9.3
Agree with Nathan. Seems like it doesn't prepared because we should take care of STORM-350. 2014-11-15 10:54 GMT+09:00 Nathan Marz nat...@nathanmarz.com: -1. Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-350 it seems the upgrade to disruptor caused message loss issues. That upgrade should be reverted, or I'd like @clockfly to provide more insight. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Harsha st...@harsha.io wrote: I am +1 releasing 0.9.3 +1 on including STORM-555. Thanks, Harsha On Fri, Nov 14, 2014, at 02:29 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: I’d like to get the community’s opinion on releasing 0.9.3 with what is currently in the 0.9.3 branch. This would be the official release (skipping the unofficial rc2). The only addition I’d like to include is STORM-555, which should be eligible for merging early next week. Thoughts? -Taylor Email had 1 attachment: + signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature) -- Twitter: @nathanmarz http://nathanmarz.com -- Name : 임 정택 Blog : http://www.heartsavior.net / http://dev.heartsavior.net Twitter : http://twitter.com/heartsavior LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/heartsavior
