Hi Aditya,
Thanks for your interest. We entatively planning one in June
1st week. If you haven't already please register here
https://www.meetup.com/Apache-Storm-Apache-Kafka/ . I'll keep the Storm
lists updated once we finalize the date & location.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Apr 24, 201
Hi All,
We are organizing a Storm Meetup at Hortonworks HQ in Santa
Clara,CA. If you are interested in attending please RSVP here
https://www.meetup.com/Apache-Storm-Apache-Kafka/events/238975416/
Thanks,
Harsha
hanges and cut another RC.
> I'm fine with that, but want to make sure we have consensus before going
> down that road.
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Mar 24, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Harsha Chintalapani
> wrote:
> >
> > Agree on change like this would be confusing to t
;>
> >>>> +1 to moving non-conncectors to top level. I think we should keep
> stom-kafka-monitor under external or connectors(after renaming).
> >>>>
> >>>> Jungtaek, just to clarify on what you said regarding storm core
> referencing storm-kaf
+1 on moving non-connectors to top-level like sql and storm-perf.
Regarding storm-kafka-monitor we can move this into "util" folder or keep
in the external.
-Harsha
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:23 AM Satish Duggana
wrote:
> storm-kafka-monitor is not a connector by itself but it is related to kafka
Storm 2.0 migration to java in itself is a big win and would attract wider
community and adoption. So my vote would be to resolve the first 3 items to
get a release out.
All the other featured mentioned are great to have but shouldn't be
blockers for 2.0 release.
-Harsha
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1
ll strategy, no data gets polled at all.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hugo
> >
> > On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:48 AM, Harsha Chintalapani <mailto:st...@harsha.io>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for documenting and releasing.
> > -Harsha
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 20
+1 for documenting and releasing.
-Harsha
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:04 AM Jungtaek Lim wrote:
> +1 to the latter.
>
> I'm in favor of documenting the change to release note, and also docs so
> that website can be reflected. The users who are affected to the change
> wouldn't be much, since using
Hi All,
We are planning on scheduling a Storm Meetup in April 1st week.
Here is the meetup link https://www.meetup.com/Apache-Storm-Apache-Kafka/.
If you are interested in talking about your use-cases in storm there is 1
more slot available, please reach out to me.
Thanks,
Harsha
1605
> >>
> >>> fix NullPointException with acked.get(rtp)
> >> (master) https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1807
> >>
> >> [storm-sql]
> >>
> >>> STORM-1443 [Storm SQL] Support customizing parallelism in StormSQL
> >> h
+1
Tested in 3 node vagant cluster and ran few example topologies. Looks good
and verified the signature of artifacts.
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:13 AM Bobby Evans
wrote:
> +1 Ran some simple tests in cluster mode.
>
>
> - Bobby
>
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017, 2:58:44 AM CST, Jungtaek Lim <
>
Trying to check the status on this release of 1.1.0. Are we going to do
this release anytime soon?
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:50 PM S G wrote:
> Not sure if its a little late to include for the 1.1.0 and 1.0.3 releases
> now, but can we consider using zookeeper 3.4.9 for the future versions as
>
I am ok with adopting templates but lets keep this process simpler.
We've new contributors coming in and they probably didn't have chance to go
through process.
We can guide them through the process or have strict template that everyone
needs to adopt to.
I don't think having guidelin
Having integration tests run as part of the travis helps finding any
run-time issues that we might not be able to catch otherwise. Can you
please file a JIRA, Raghav who put this together might help.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:15 AM Xin Wang wrote:
> Hi Jungtaek,
>
> I agree with
;t have good
upgrade path there will less uses on the new version.
Critical API changes can still be possible by versioning the API.
-Harsha
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:06 AM Kyle Nusbaum
wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016, 7:23:09 AM CST, Harsha Chintalapani <
> st...@harsha.io
If we want users to upgrade to new version, the rolling upgrade is a major
decision factor. As a community, we need to look API updates or breaking
changes much more diligently.
I agree to an extent we shouldn't limiting ourselves with rolling upgrade.
But having announced rolling-upgrade in 0.10 a
My only concern here is the rolling upgrade of storm cluster. We supported
the rolling upgrade going to 0.10 and broke it because of storm 1.x
release. Users are not inclined to upgrade to a new release if it's not
rolling upgradable. In this case, it looks like we are going to break this.
Correct
>From the looks of it the benefit accepting this code donation is to attract
more developers on storm-sql . What is stopping SQE developers to come and
contribute to JIRAs that are open on storm-sql?. I don't see just
accepting code donation and setting aside is not much of a
incentive/motivation
Abhishek,
Are you looking rolling upgrade kafka cluster or storm?
Harsha
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 6:18 AM Abhishek Agarwal
wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2016 2:50 PM, "Abhishek Agarwal" wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Here is an interesting use case - To upgrade a topology without any
> downtime. Let's say,
We need to get this patch in for 0.10 release
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1645
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:28 AM Bobby Evans
wrote:
> +1 - Bobby
>
> On Friday, August 26, 2016 9:03 AM, Jungtaek Lim
> wrote:
>
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> - testing with source distribution :
I guess everyone has different interpretation of what Bylaws means . More
context
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1628
anything wrong with Vote thread?
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:04 PM P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> Why is this a VOTE?
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Hars
Hi All,
Currently we are undertaken JStorm merger and ongoing migration
of existing Clojure code. I am proposing that we should stop any feature
development for 1.x branch so that we can make progress on java migration
and get it done before adding any further features. If any one interes
Hi All,
We had a discussion thread for removing Java 7 support for Storm
2.0.
Here is a formal voting thread and the JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2041.
Thanks,
Harsha
Do we have any user requests on releasing 0.9.x . I rather propose them to
move on to 0.10.x line and retire 0.9.x branches. There are quite few
issues that got fixed in 0.10.x release line and keep maintaining 0.9.x
line wouldn't be beneficial.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:48 PM Jung
Hi All,
Dropping java 7 support on master will allow us to use the new api in
Java 8 and since the master is being used for java migration its good to
make the decision now. Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Harsha
+1 (binding)
Ran a single node cluster and tried example topologies. Verified signatures
on the artifcats.
-Harsha
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:02 AM P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Ran on a 3-node cluster and verified fixes.
>
> -Taylor
>
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 4:04 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wr
26 matches
Mail list logo
