Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release/Clojure-Java Migration

: <dev@storm.apache.org<mailto:dev@storm.apache.org>> Subject: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release/Clojure-Java Migration I think the 1.x-branch has stabilized enough that it's safe to allow the master branch diverge in support of the JStorm merge. There's a lot of good work going on with the

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release/Clojure-Java Migration

lto:ptgo...@gmail.com>> > Reply-To: <dev@storm.apache.org<mailto:dev@storm.apache.org>> > Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 7:23 PM > To: <dev@storm.apache.org<mailto:dev@storm.apache.org>> > Subject: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release/Clojure-Java Migration > > I think t

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release/Clojure-Java Migration

I agree that it has stabilized a lot recently. Taylor, in the past you have been the one that has done most of the release work.  I am fine with letting you continue that for the 1.x line if you like, or I am happy to do some of that too if you would rather off load it.  Please let me know

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release/Clojure-Java Migration

Is it possible to make the type as Epic so that remaining filed issues can be directly linked? e.g. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1455 On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:53 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > I think the 1.x-branch has stabilized enough that it’s safe to allow

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release/Clojure-Java Migration

Thanks Bobby. I don’t mind doing the release prep and testing. It seems like i’ve been focused on that while you’ve had more time to forge ahead with the JStorm migration, which feels like a natural way for us to divide and conquer. So far that seems to be working out well. -Taylor > On Feb

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release/Clojure-Java Migration

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. -Taylor > On Feb 2, 2016, at 5:11 AM, Abhishek Agarwal wrote: > > Is it possible to make the type as Epic so that remaining filed issues can > be directly linked? > e.g. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1455 > > On Tue, Feb 2,

[DISCUSS] 1.0 release

I feel we are about ready to do a 1.0 release. The only JIRA left on the list (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STORM/Storm+Release+1.0) is STORM-1371.  I would also like to see STORM-1202 go in.

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 release

4 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 release Of the three blockers: STORM-1141 looks invalid now that 0.10.0 has been released. STORM-930 also looks invalid, and there aren’t many details to diagnose. STORM-617 doesn’t seem like a blocker, since there is a workaround for the issue. I will look

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

Time:2015年11月18日(星期三) 07:57To:dev@storm.apache.org <dev@storm.apache.org>Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release) +1 as well. I support moving to the org.apache.storm package as early as  possible and I am OK with storm-compat. My only concern with using 

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

My concern for backwards compatibility is really to provide a clean upgrade path to my users.  So for me it is mostly maintaining some form of backwards compatibility for a few months until all the users have upgraded.  This is because we have multiple clusters and having users maintain two

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

I have a patch that is close, but like I said on the JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1202 we are not going to be able to make a storm-compat.jar work.  Instead I have a binary that uses the shade code to rewrite the jar before it runs to match the new namespace.  I am just

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

I may have misunderstood. I'm okay with cutting 1.0 if after we merge JStorm we go to 2.0. I thought I read in one of these threads the proposal to move to 1.1 afterwards, but I cannot find it now.  -- Kyle On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 5:00 PM, Kyle Nusbaum

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

+1 as well. I support moving to the org.apache.storm package as early as possible and I am OK with storm-compat. My only concern with using storm-compat is if we are going to have to support it forever, or plan on dropping it after a certain release. Backwards compatibility is a valid concern

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

I would prefer to wait until the JStorm code is merged to move to 1.0, and keep the current planned release as 0.11 My concern is that there will be significant functionality and possibly stability changes involved, and it feels more natural to have major changes be across a major version

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

I have a pull request up now for these changes.  I can run both new and old jars, but you have to use a new client when submitting an old jar or it will not work. https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/889  - Bobby On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 9:43 AM, Bobby Evans

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

+1 on Bobby's suggestion on moving the packages to storm-compat and have it part of lib folder. Moving 1.0 with org.apache.storm will make it easier in the future rather than wait for 2.0 release we should make this change now and in 2.0 we can remove the storm-compat jar. Thanks, Harsha On

[DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

Changing subject in order to consolidate discussion of a 1.0 release in one thread (there was some additional discussion in the thread regarding the JStorm code merge). I just want to make sure I’m accurately capturing the sentiment of the community with regard to a 1.0 release. Please correct

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

+1 -- Derek - Original Message - From: P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> To: dev@storm.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:21 PM Subject: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release) Changing subject in order to consolidate discussion of

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

+1 - Bobby On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:22 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: Changing subject in order to consolidate discussion of a 1.0 release in one thread (there was some additional discussion in the thread regarding the JStorm code merge). I just want to

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.0 Release (was Re: [DISCUSS] Initial 0.11.0 Release)

+1 Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) 2015-11-12 7:21 GMT+09:00 P. Taylor Goetz : > Changing subject in order to consolidate discussion of a 1.0 release in > one thread (there was some additional discussion in the thread regarding > the JStorm code merge). > > I just want to make