I just merged the most important backwards compatibility changes, with tests.
I think this one is still a blocker: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5320 (WindowedStream.fold() cannot be used). And this one is a potential blocker for some users: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5363. IMHO, we can cut the branch today and I'll get them in on master and both the 1.2 branch. What do you think? On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 at 15:24 Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > Quick update here: I talked to Aljoscha offline, and the backwards > compatibility is still being tested (there were some bugs identified while > writing the tests). > > Also, Stephan made some fixes to the build infrastructure ( > https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3029) that would be good to be > included into the release branch. > To finally get the FLIP-6 branch merged to master, I'm considering > branching off the 1.2 release later today. It will be a little bit more > overhead for Stephan and Aljoscha, but it will unblock all features waiting > for a Flink 1.3 master. > > > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Thank you Aljoscha and Fabian for the updates. > > I propose *Monday evening (6pm Berlin, 9am US west coast) for feature > > freezing Flink 1.2 *then. This means that I'll create a release-1.2 fork > > and create a 1.2 RC0 (non-voting) release candidate for testing. > > > > I don't think that I'll create the first (voting) RC until January > because > > of christmas and new years activities. Most of the committers I know are > > out of office during these 1,5 weeks. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I merged the Table API refactoring changes: > >> > >> - RESOLVED Clean up the packages of the Table API (FLINK-4704) > >> - RESOLVED Move Row to flink-core (FLINK-5186) > >> > >> No blockers left from my side. > >> > >> Cheers, Fabian > >> > >> 2016-12-16 17:47 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: > >> > >> > 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 > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
