Regarding FLINK-2237 (hash-based combiner), I think we need a bit more time. It is a fairly large contribution and touches/adds core functionality.
I started reviewing the PR and will suggest a few changes in the next days. 2016-02-08 11:48 GMT+01:00 Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org>: > There are still some 8 open blockers for the 1.0 release: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20FLINK%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC > > I also think that there are some pull requests which are almost ready to > merge and should go in: > > - [FLINK-3341] Make 'auto.offset.reset' compatible with Kafka 0.8 and 0.9 > - [FLINK-3336] Add Rescale Data Shipping for DataStream > - FLINK-2213 Makes the number of vcores per YARN container configurable > - [FLINK-2021] Rework examples to use ParameterTool > - [FLINK-3310] [runtime, runtime-web] Add back pressure statistics > - [FLINK-3296] Remove 'flushing' behavior of the OutputFormat in DataStream > API > - [FLINK-3270] Add Kafka example > - FLINK-2380: allow to specify the default filesystem scheme in the flink > configuration file. > - [FLINK-2237] [runtime] Add hash-based combiner. > - [FLINK-3187] Introduce RestartStrategy to decouple restarting behaviour > from ExecutionGraph > > I try to get these PRs in and push the owners of the blocking issues for > resolutions. > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think that getting the stop signal in would be very nice. > > > > I would like to postpone the feature freeze till end of this week and > > create the first RC on Monday. There are many open pull requests with > fixes > > that need to go in (stop signal, rocksdb state backend, interface > > annotations, streaming api fixes) > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> 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). > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> > > >
