I think reverting FLINK-6188 for the 1.2 branch might be a good idea. FLINK-6188 introduced two new bugs, so undoing the FLINK-6188 fix will lead only to one known bug in 1.2.1, instead of an uncertain number of issues. So 1.2.1 is not going to be worse than 1.2.0
The fix will hopefully make it into 1.2.2 then. Any other thoughts on this? On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > I merged the fix for FLINK-6044 to the release-1.2 and release-1.1 branch. > > 2017-03-31 15:02 GMT+02:00 Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com>: > > > We should also backport the fix for FLINK-6044 to Flink 1.2.1. > > > > I'll take care of that. > > > > 2017-03-30 18:50 GMT+02:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 turns out to be a bit > >> more involved, see my comments on the PR: > >> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616. > >> > >> As I said there, maybe we should revert the commits regarding > >> parallelism/max-parallelism changes and release and then fix it later. > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, at 23:08, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > >> > I commented on FLINK-6214: I think it's working as intended, although > we > >> > could fix the javadoc/doc. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, at 17:35, Timo Walther wrote: > >> > > A user reported that all tumbling and slinding window assigners > >> contain > >> > > a pretty obvious bug about offsets. > >> > > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6214 > >> > > > >> > > I think we should also fix this for 1.2.1. What do you think? > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Timo > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Am 29/03/17 um 11:30 schrieb Robert Metzger: > >> > > > Hi Haohui, > >> > > > I agree that we should fix the parallelism issue. Otherwise, the > >> 1.2.1 > >> > > > release would introduce a new bug. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Haohui Mai <ricet...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> -1 (non-binding) > >> > > >> > >> > > >> We recently found out that all jobs submitted via UI will have a > >> > > >> parallelism of 1, potentially due to FLINK-5808. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Filed FLINK-6209 to track it. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> ~Haohui > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM Chesnay Schepler < > >> ches...@apache.org> > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> If possible I would like to include FLINK-6183 & FLINK-6184 as > >> well. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> They fix 2 metric-related issues that could arise when a Task is > >> > > >>> cancelled very early. (like, right away) > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> FLINK-6183 fixes a memory leak where the TaskMetricGroup was > >> never closed > >> > > >>> FLINK-6184 fixes a NullPointerExceptions in the buffer metrics > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3611 > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> On 26.03.2017 12:35, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > >> > > >>>> I opened a PR for FLINK-6188: https://github.com/apache/ > >> > > >> flink/pull/3616 > >> > > >>> <https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3616> > >> > > >>>> This improves the previously very sparse test coverage for > >> > > >>> timestamp/watermark assigners and fixes the bug. > >> > > >>>>> On 25 Mar 2017, at 10:22, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> I agree with Aljoscha. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> -1 because of FLINK-6188 > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < > >> > > >> aljos...@apache.org> > >> > > >>> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>> I filed this issue, which was observed by a user: > >> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 > >> > > >>>>>> I think that’s blocking for 1.2.1. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> On 24 Mar 2017, at 18:57, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> RC1 doesn't contain Stefan's backport for the Asynchronous > >> snapshots > >> > > >>>>>>> for heap-based keyed state that has been merged. Should we > >> create > >> > > >> RC2 > >> > > >>>>>>> with that fix since the voting period only starts on Monday? > >> I think > >> > > >>>>>>> it would only mean rerunning the scripts on your side, > right? > >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> – Ufuk > >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Robert Metzger < > >> > > >> rmetz...@apache.org> > >> > > >>> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>>>> Dear Flink community, > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache > >> Flink > >> > > >>> version 1.2 > >> > > >>>>>>>> .1. > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> The commit to be voted on: > >> > > >>>>>>>> *732e55bd* (* > >> > > >>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/flink/commit/732e55bd > >> > > >>>>>>>> <http://git-wip-us.apache.org/ > repos/asf/flink/commit/732e55b > >> d>*) > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> Branch: > >> > > >>>>>>>> release-1.2.1-rc1 > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> The release artifacts to be voted on can be found at: > >> > > >>>>>>>> *http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/ > >> > > >>>>>>>> <http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/flink-1.2.1-rc1/>* > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> The release artifacts are signed with the key with > >> fingerprint > >> > > >>> D9839159: > >> > > >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/flink/KEYS > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> The staging repository for this release can be found at: > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapache > >> flink-1116 > >> > > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > >> - > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> The vote ends on Wednesday, March 29, 2017, 3pm CET. > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Flink 1.2.1 > >> > > >>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package, because ... > >> > > >>> > >> > > > >> > > > > >
