I would be ok with Aljoscha's proposal to not revert FLINK-10354. Thus, the release branches should be good to create a first RC for 1.5.5 and 1.6.2
Cheers, Till On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > My concern was that it changes Flink's behaviour in a non trivial way > which could break existing setups. It is true that Flink's exactly once > guarantees are thwarted by that, though. > > The only problematic case is when users delete the savepoint files without > the corresponding meta state savepoint file. In this case, Flink would not > be able to recover, right? This might indeed be only an academic case. > > I've only reverted FLINK-10247 so far. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 5:46 PM Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think the "savepoints for recovery" change is a fix for likely >> violation of exactly-once guarantees while it has close to zero downsides >> in real-world use cases. Therefore I think we should not revert it and >> release the fix for 1.5.5 and 1.6.2. >> >> Best, >> Aljoscha >> >> > On 16. Oct 2018, at 13:48, Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > I agree that these change the behavior of Flink and could cause issues >> for users, hence I would be in favor of reverting said changes. >> > >> > On 16.10.2018 13:46, Till Rohrmann wrote: >> >> Sorry for the late notification, but I think we have some changes in >> the release branches which we might consider for reverting. >> >> >> >> 1) Savepoints being considered for recovery [1] >> >> >> >> The problem is that we change Flink's savepoint contract in the sense >> that savepoint's are no longer exclusively under the control of the user. >> >> >> >> 2) Run metric's query service in separate actor system [2] >> >> >> >> The problem is that we start a new ActorSystem for the >> MetricQueryService which needs another port being opened to communicate. >> >> >> >> What do you think? >> >> >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10354 >> >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10247 >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Till >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:52 AM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org >> <mailto:ches...@apache.org> <mailto:ches...@apache.org <mailto: >> ches...@apache.org>>> wrote: >> >> >> >> My issues have been merged as well. >> >> >> >> I will cut the release branches in 3 hours. >> >> >> >> On 15.10.2018 22:11, Till Rohrmann wrote: >> >> > FLINK-9932 has been merged. >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Till >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:19 PM Till Rohrmann >> >> <trohrm...@apache.org <mailto:trohrm...@apache.org> <mailto: >> trohrm...@apache.org <mailto:trohrm...@apache.org>>> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks a lot for starting this discussion Chesnay. I fully >> >> agree that a >> >> >> new bug fix release would be justified. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm currently working on FLINK-9932 which I would like to >> >> include in the >> >> >> next bug fix release. It should be done by the end of today. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Till >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:40 AM Chesnay Schepler >> >> <ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org> <mailto: >> ches...@apache.org <mailto:ches...@apache.org>>> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Hello, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> we've accumulated various fixes for 1.5.5 (24) and 1.6.2 (37) >> that >> >> >>> improve stability by quite a bit along with some neat >> >> usability fixes. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I'm proposing to do the next bugfix releases soon (I suggest >> >> tomorrow as >> >> >>> a tentative vote date), and volunteer to handle the release >> >> process for >> >> >>> both of them. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> There are some back-ports that I myself want to get in first >> >> >>> (FLINK-10282, FLINK-10075, FLINK-10135) but this should be >> >> done by today. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Regards, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Chesnay >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>
