Yes, I'm confident that we can finish the tests until then and merge the code.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 17:41 Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > Thank you for the update. Do you think you get it done until Monday > evening? > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > we're still working on making the backwards compatibility from 1.1 > > savepoints a reality. We have most of the code and some tests now but it > > still needs some work. This is the issue that tracks the progress on the > > operators that we would like to make backwards compatible: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5292 > > > > Cheers, > > Aljoscha > > > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 at 11:22 Feng Wang <feng.w...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > > > It will be pretty good if 1.2 branch could be forked off within this > > week, > > > and our guys working on FLIP-6 hope FLIP-6 branch could be merged into > > > master as soon as possible. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Feng Wang > > > > > > Alibaba > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 4:58 AM > > > To: dev@flink.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Schedule and Scope for Flink 1.2 > > > > > > Thank you all for figuring out a solution for the security pull > request. > > > > > > > > > Lets try to get 1.2 feature freezed as fast as possible so that we can > > > "unblock" waiting features like FLIP-6 and the remaining security > > changes. > > > > > > *What do you think about Friday evening (6pm Berlin, 9am US west coast) > > for > > > feature freezing Flink 1.2?* (only bugfixes are allowed in afterwards) > > > I'll then fork-off a "release-1.2" branch and update the version in > > > "master" to 1.3-SNAPSHOT. > > > Please object if you have a bigger change or any other reservations > > > regarding the feature freeze date! > > > > > > This is my current view of things on the release: > > > > > > - RESOLVED dynamic Scaling / Key Groups (FLINK-3755) > > > - RESOLVED Add Rescalable Non-Partitioned State (FLINK-4379) > > > - UNRESOLVED Add Flink 1.1 savepoint backwards compatability > (FLINK-4797) > > > - RESOLVED [Split for 1.3] Integrate Flink with Apache Mesos > (FLINK-1984) > > > - UNDER DISCUSSION Secure Data Access (FLINK-3930) > > > - RESOLVED Queryable State (FLINK-3779) > > > - RESOLVED Metrics in Webinterface (FLINK-4389) > > > - RESOLVED Kafka 0.10 support (FLINK-4035) > > > - RESOLVED Table API: Group Window Aggregates (FLINK-4691, FLIP-11) > > > - RESOLVED Table API: Scalar Functions (FLINK-3097) > > > Added by Stephan: > > > - NON-BLOCKING [Pending PR] Provide support for asynchronous operations > > > over streams (FLINK-4391) > > > - NON-BLOCKING [beginning of next week] Unify Savepoints and > Checkpoints > > > (FLINK-4484) > > > Added by Fabian: > > > - ONGOING [Pending PR] Clean up the packages of the Table API > > (FLINK-4704) > > > Move Row to flink-core ( > > > Added by Max: > > > - ONGOING [Pending PR] Change Akka configuration to allow accessing > > actors > > > from different URLs (FLINK-2821) > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Vijay! > > > > > > > > The workaround you suggest may be doable, but I am wondering how much > > > that > > > > helps, because the authorization feature would be incomplete like > that > > > and > > > > thus of limited use. > > > > > > > > I would also assume that merging it properly and in full use after > the > > > 1.2 > > > > release would be a bit better - in general, we have often avoided > last > > > > minute additions of sensitive and complex features. > > > > > > > > Do you think it is more urgent to have this in Flink? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Vijay <vijikar...@yahoo.com.invalid > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Max and Ufuk, I respect your concerns and fully understand the > > > importance > > > > > of the network layer stack in Flink code base. Will you be > > comfortable > > > to > > > > > merge the code if I remove the Netty layer changes and leave the > rest > > > of > > > > > the code. We can address the Netty code changes post 1.2 release? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Vijay > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:38 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12 December 2016 at 12:30:31, Maximilian Michels ( > > m...@apache.org) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> It seems like we lack the resources for now to properly to take > > > > > >> care > > > > > >> of your pull request before the release. Unless someone from > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> community is really eager to help out here, I would be in favor > > > > > >> of > > > > > >> merging the pull request to the master after the release branch > > > > > >> has > > > > > >> been forked off. We should make sure it gets the attention it > > > deserves > > > > > >> then. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Max! I fully agree with your reasoning. +1 to not include > > this > > > > in > > > > > 1.2 now, but look at it afterwards. I hope that OK with you Vijay. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Ufuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
