+1 for options (1), but also invest the time to fix it properly for 1.2.2
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Kostas Kloudas <k.klou...@data-artisans.com> wrote: > +1 for 1 > > > On Apr 3, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > +1 for option 1) > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> +1 to option 1) > >> > >> 2017-04-03 16:57 GMT+02:00 Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> Looks like #1 is better - 1.2.1 would be at least as stable as 1.2.0 > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Just so we’re all on the same page. ;-) > >>>> > >>>> There was https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5808 which was > a > >>>> bug that we initially discovered in Flink 1.2 which was/is about > >> missing > >>>> verification for the correctness of the combination of parallelism and > >>>> max-parallelism. Due to lacking test coverage this introduced two more > >>> bugs: > >>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188: Some > >>>> setParallelism() methods can't cope with default parallelism > >>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6209: > >>>> StreamPlanEnvironment always has a parallelism of 1 > >>>> > >>>> IMHO, the options are: > >>>> 1) revert the changes made for FLINK-5808 on the release-1.2 branch > >> and > >>>> live with the bug still being present > >>>> 2) put in more work to fix FLINK-5808 which requires fixing some > >>> problems > >>>> that have existed for a long time with how the parallelism is set in > >>>> streaming programs > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> Aljoscha > >>>> > >>>>> On 31. Mar 2017, at 21:34, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't know what is best to do, but I think releasing 1.2.1 with > >>>>> potentially more bugs than 1.2.0 is not a good option. > >>>>> I suspect a good workaround for FLINK-6188 > >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188> is setting the > >>>>> parallelism manually for operators that can't cope with the default > >> -1 > >>>>> parallelism. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Aljoscha Krettek < > >> aljos...@apache.org > >>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> You mean reverting the changes around FLINK-5808 [1]? This is what > >>>>>> introduced the follow-up FLINK-6188 [2]. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5808 > >>>>>> [2]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6188 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, at 19:10, Robert Metzger wrote: > >>>>>>> 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 ... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
