I will address the ExecutionGraphDeadlock today... On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks Vasia! > > We should clearly label Gelly as Work in Progress and at Beta status, then > it should be okay. This is very fair, it is the first version, people > understand that. > > In that sense, let us not call Spargel deprecated in favor of Gelly yet, > but do that for the next release when Gelly is ready. > > Stephan > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri < > vasilikikala...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> regarding the 2 gelly issues, I'm sorry but I haven't had time to work on >> these. >> And most certainly I won't be able to work on these today :S >> >> In any case, I wouldn't consider them blocker issues, so if you agree, >> please go ahead with the release candidate. >> >> -Vasia. >> >> On 5 June 2015 at 11:46, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > I'll address the remaining documentation issues today. >> > >> > What about >> > >> > - >> > >> > Sync Streaming Java/Scala API >> > - Consolidate names across batch/streaming (discussion) >> > - Merge static code analysis >> > >> > and the gelly TODOs >> > >> > - >> > >> > FLINK-1522 Add tests for the library methods and examples >> > - FLINK-1943 Add Gelly-GSA compiler and translation tests >> > >> > >> > They seem both unresolved. >> > >> > Other than that it seems we are good to go. >> > Maybe we can manage to get the first release candidate out today? >> > >> > I'm uncertain whether we should fork off the "release-0.9" branch as >> part >> > of the RC creation or whether we should wait a bit with that. >> > >> > Forking it of would allow us to merge some of the pull requests (storm >> > compat), but we would need to apply many patches to two branches. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Yes, Till, Max, Ufuk, and me have reached consensus that we will >> postpone >> > > the batch scheduling to 0.10. It is a crucial feature, but we would >> not >> > > like to have it in a highly pre-mature version in there. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > What came up a lot is that there are a good set of additions that are >> > close >> > > to completion. We will probably bring up the suggestion of a 0.10 >> release >> > > very soon after the 0.9 release. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Ping. >> > > > >> > > > On 04 Jun 2015, at 14:11, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Critical issues: >> > > > > >> > > > > - Skipped buffer ( >> > > > >> > > >> > >> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/Buffer-re-ordering-problem-td6009.html >> > > ) >> > > > (I'm on it) >> > > > > - Execution graph deadlock (FLINK-2133) >> > > > >> > > > I'm investigating the skipped buffer. I vote to not block the >> release >> > on >> > > > this though if I can't reproduce it in the next days. >> > > > >> > > > What about FLINK-2133? >> > > > >> > > > > Big open issue: >> > > > > - There has been consensus to merge the static code analysis PR >> for >> > > this >> > > > release, which needs some further testing (I'm on it) >> > > > > - Batch scheduling. I think Till and Stephan are working on this. >> Can >> > > > you guys give an estimate whether we will be able to have it in the >> > > release? >> > > > >> > > > @Till, Stephan: Will batch scheduling make it into the release? :) >> > > >> > >> > >
