Github user vongosling commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2518
@HeartSaVioR RocketMQ is another high performance messaging and low latency
engine in Apache, I am glad to introduce it to your storm guys :-)
---
Github user vongosling commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2518#discussion_r166494139
--- Diff: external/storm-rocketmq/README.md ---
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# Storm RocketMQ
-Storm/Trident integration for
[RocketMQ](https://rocketmq
Github user vongosling commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2518#discussion_r166494277
--- Diff:
external/storm-rocketmq/src/main/java/org/apache/storm/rocketmq/RocketMqConfig.java
---
@@ -23,28 +23,20 @@
import java.util.Properties;
Github user hmcl commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
+1
Thanks @HeartSaVioR for working on this right away.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
@hmcl Addressed.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2548#discussion_r166460108
--- Diff:
storm-client/src/jvm/org/apache/storm/security/auth/kerberos/AutoTGT.java ---
@@ -33,18 +33,21 @@
import javax.security.auth.login.LoginCo
Github user agresch commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2548
@HeartSaVioR Let me know if this looks better.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
@hmcl Got it. You're saying marking the origin commit offset. Makes sense.
I'll do it.
---
Github user hmcl commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
+1
@HeartSaVioR I meant to say that you should add also to the commit log the
SHA of the 1.x-branch that you checked out and of which copied the entire
storm-kafka-client directory and the exam
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2518
I'm sad to say this is the case, same case as storm-eventhub which lacks
committer sponsors. I can't (and I shouldn't) review connector which I have
completely no idea what it is and how it works
This is a call to vote on releasing Apache Storm 1.2.0 (rc3)
Full list of changes in this release:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/storm/apache-storm-1.2.0-rc3/RELEASE_NOTES.html
The tag/commit to be voted upon is v1.2.0:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=storm.git;a=tree;h=7be13
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
@hmcl Just applied your review comment.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2548#discussion_r166435892
--- Diff:
storm-client/src/jvm/org/apache/storm/executor/bolt/BoltExecutor.java ---
@@ -77,6 +83,17 @@ public void init(Map idToTask) {
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
@hmcl
Yes that's only `InterfaceStability` which was needed in storm-core for
1.1.x-branch. I was a bit confused between 1.1.x-branch and 1.0.x-branch, which
1.0.x-branch requires more chang
Took a look at backporting to 1.0.x. We'll have to update the time
simulation code (Time.java in storm-core) to support nanoseconds, as Erik
noted, but this isn't a breaking change and only affects tests.
This PR https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1995/files#diff-
72647db30ffd6005dc01c4d1f75d2c6
Github user hmcl commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
@HeartSaVioR I agree that your approach. Can please add to the commit
message the SHA from the 1.x-branch that was the base for this overwrite, such
that one can trace it down in case it is necessary. T
Github user srdo commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
+1. Hope we can avoid something like this in the future. Thanks for the
quick PR Jungtaek.
---
Just a heads up: While this gets sorted out I’m going to proceed with a 1.2.0
RC.
-Taylor
> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:46 PM, Jungtaek Lim wrote:
>
> UPDATE: Submitted a pull request https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549 for
> STORM-2936 (against 1.1.x-branch)
>
> Erik, please change the statu
Github user ptgoetz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
+1
---
Github user agresch commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2548
We're trying to bring this change back to older releases internally. Since
v2 is not available and we want to backport this, could we get this in and
address changing to v2 in the near future?
Github user vesense commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2518
Any comments are welcome..
---
Github user agresch commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2546
removed comment
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
So the commit solely represents divergence between 1.x and 1.1.x in point
of storm-kafka-client's view, and there's no basis to separate commits for this.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
Such iteration would be much harder for 1.0.x, since there're more changes
on 'storm-core' applied in 1.1.x, hence storm-core is (surely) more diverged
for storm-kafka-client.
---
Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
@erikdw
"fix compilation issues due to storm-core" <== maybe my bad to explain
here, I don't fix something specific for compilation, but I was done
iterations: build -> found error -> found
Github user erikdw commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
Also can you please tell me how you "archived" the couple of items that you
did?
---
Github user erikdw commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/2549
I know we've talked with @hmcl about the "to squash or not to squash?"
question -- IMNSHO this is a perfect example of where squashing is a bad idea.
i.e., I have *no* idea what "fix compilation issu
27 matches
Mail list logo
