Hi, I also would like to get the STOP signal in. But I do not have time to work in it this week... According to Till's comments, this will be the last round of reviewing required. So I should be able to finish it till 3rd Feb, but not sure.
What do you think about it? -Matthias On 01/25/2016 04:29 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > Hi, > I think the refactoring of Partitioned State and the WindowOperator on state > work is almost ready. I also have the RocksDB state backend working. I’m > running some tests now on the cluster and should be able to open a PR > tomorrow. > > >> On 25 Jan 2016, at 15:36, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I agree, with Gyula, one out-of-core state backend should be in. We are >> pretty close to that. Aljoscha has done good work on extending test >> coverage for state backends, so we should be pretty comfortable that it >> works as well, once we integrate new state backends with the tests. >> >> There is a bit of work do do around extending the interface of the >> key/value state. I would like to start a separate thread on that today or >> tomorrow... >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Gyula Fóra <gyf...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree that getting Flink 1.0.0 out soon would be great as Flink is in a >>> pretty solid state right now. >>> >>> I wonder whether it would make sense to include an out-of-core state >>> backend in streaming core that can be used with partitioned/window states. >>> I think if we are releasing 1.0.0 we should have a solid feature set for >>> our strong steaming use-cases (in this case stateful, and windowed >>> computations) and this should be a part of that. >>> >>> I know that Aljoscha is working on a solution for this which will probably >>> involve a heavy refactor of the State backend interfaces, and I am also >>> working on a similar solution. Maybe it would be good to get at least one >>> good robust solution for this in and definitely Aljoscha's refactor for the >>> interfaces. >>> >>> If we decide to do this, I think this needs 1-2 extra weeks of proper >>> testing so this might delay the schedule a little bit. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Gyula >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2016. jan. 25., H, >>> 11:54): >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I would like to release 1.0.0 in the next weeks. >>>> Looking at the JIRAs, I think we are going to close a lot of blocking >>>> issues soon. How about we do a first release candidate on Wednesday, 3. >>>> February? >>>> >>>> The first release candidate is most likely not going to pass the vote, >>> the >>>> primary goal will be collecting a list of issues we need to address. >>>> >>>> There is also a Wiki page for the 1.0 release: >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/1.0+Release >>>> >>>> Please -1 to this message if 3. February is too soon for the first RC (it >>>> also means that we'll do a feature freeze around that time). >>>> >>> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
