I created a PR for the revert: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3664
> On 3. Apr 2017, at 18:32, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > +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 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>
