+1 (binding) from my side - legal files (license, notice) looks correct - no binaries in the release - ran examples from command line - ran some examples from web ui - log files look sane - RocksDB, incremental checkpoints, savepoints, moving savepoints all works as expected.
There are some friction points, which have also been mentioned. However, I am not sure they need to block the release. - Some batch examples in the web UI have not been working in 1.10. We should fix that asap, because it impacts the "getting started" experience, but I personally don't vote against the release based on that - Same for the CDC bug. It is unfortunate, but I would not hold the release at such a late stage for one special issue in a new connector. Let's work on a timely 1.11.1. I would withdraw my vote, if we find a fundamental issue in the network system causing the increased checkpoint delays, causing the job regression Thomas mentioned. Such a core bug would be a deal-breaker for a large fraction of users. On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:35 AM Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com.invalid> wrote: > I also agree with Till and Robert's proposals. > > In general I think we should not block the release based on current > estimation. Otherwise we continuously postpone the release, it might > probably occur new bugs for blockers, then we might probably > get stuck in such cycle to not give a final release for users in time. But > that does not mean RC4 would be the final one, and we can reevaluate the > effects in progress with the accumulated issues. > > Regarding the performance regression, if possible we can reproduce to > analysis the reason based on Thomas's feedback, then we can evaluate its > effect. > > Regarding the FLINK-18461, after syncing with Jark offline, the bug would > effect one of three scenarios for using CDC feature, and this effected > scenario is actually the most commonly used way by users. > My suggestion is to merge it into release-1.11 ATM since the PR already > open for review, then let's further finalize the conclusion later. If this > issue is the only one after RC4 going through, then another option is to > cover it in next release-1.11.1 as Robert suggested, as we can prepare for > the next minor release soon. If there are other blockers issues during > voting and necessary to be resolved soon, then it is no doubt to cover all > of them in next RC5. > > Best, > Zhijiang > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > From:Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > Send Time:2020年7月2日(星期四) 16:46 > To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > Cc:Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> > Subject:Re: [VOTE] Release 1.11.0, release candidate #4 > > I agree with Robert. > > @Chesnay: The problem has probably already existed in Flink 1.10 and > before because we cannot run jobs with eager execution calls from the web > ui. I agree with Robert that we can/should improve our documentation in > this regard, though. > > @Thomas: > 1. I will update the release notes to add a short section describing that > one needs to configure the JobManager memory. > 2. Concerning the performance regression we should look into it. I believe > Zhijiang is very eager to learn more about your exact setup to further > debug it. Again I agree with Robert to not block the release on it at the > moment. > > @Jark: How much of a problem is FLINK-18461? Will it make the CDC feature > completely unusable or will only make a subset of the use cases to not > work? If it is the latter, then I believe that we can document the > limitations and try to fix it asap. Depending on the remaining testing the > fix might make it into the 1.11.0 or the 1.11.1 release. > > Cheers, > Till > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:33 AM Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > wrote: > Thanks a lot for the thorough testing Thomas! This is really helpful! > > @Chesnay: I would not block the release on this. The web submission does > not seem to be the documented / preferred way of job submission. It is > unlikely to harm the beginner's experience (and they would anyways not > read > the release notes). I mention the beginner experience, because they are > the > primary audience of the examples. > > Regarding FLINK-18461 / Jark's issue: I would not block the release on > that, but still try to get it fixed asap. It is likely that this RC > doesn't > go through (given the rate at which we are finding issues), and even if it > goes through, we can document it as a known issue in the release > announcement and immediately release 1.11.1. > Blocking the release on this causes quite a bit of work for the release > managers for rolling a new RC. Until we have understood the performance > regression Thomas is reporting, I would keep this RC open, and keep > testing. > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm very sorry but we just found a blocker issue FLINK-18461 [1] in the > new > > feature of changelog source (CDC). > > This bug will result in queries on changelog source can’t be inserted > into > > upsert sink (e.g. ES, JDBC, HBase), > > which is a common case in production. CDC is one of the important > features > > of Table/SQL in this release, > > so from my side, I hope we can have this fix in 1.11.0, otherwise, this > is > > a broken feature... > > > > Again, I am terribly sorry for delaying the release... > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18461 > > > > On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 12:02, Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com > .invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > Thanks for the efficient feedback. > > > > > > Regarding the suggestion of adding the release notes document, I agree > > > with your point. Maybe we should adjust the vote template accordingly > in > > > the respective wiki to guide the following release processes. > > > > > > Regarding the performance regression, could you provide some more > details > > > for our better measurement or reproducing on our sides? > > > E.g. I guess the topology only includes two vertexes source and sink? > > > What is the parallelism for every vertex? > > > The upstream shuffles data to the downstream via rebalance > partitioner or > > > other? > > > The checkpoint mode is exactly-once with rocksDB state backend? > > > The backpressure happened in this case? > > > How much percentage regression in this case? > > > > > > Best, > > > Zhijiang > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > From:Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> > > > Send Time:2020年7月2日(星期四) 09:54 > > > To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > > > Subject:Re: [VOTE] Release 1.11.0, release candidate #4 > > > > > > Hi Till, > > > > > > Yes, we don't have the setting in flink-conf.yaml. > > > > > > Generally, we carry forward the existing configuration and any change > to > > > default configuration values would impact the upgrade. > > > > > > Yes, since it is an incompatible change I would state it in the > release > > > notes. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Thomas > > > > > > BTW I found a performance regression while trying to upgrade another > > > pipeline with this RC. It is a simple Kinesis to Kinesis job. Wasn't > able > > > to pin it down yet, symptoms include increased checkpoint alignment > time. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:04 AM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > > just to confirm: When starting the image in local mode, then you > don't > > > have > > > > any of the JobManager memory configuration settings configured in > the > > > > effective flink-conf.yaml, right? Does this mean that you have > > explicitly > > > > removed `jobmanager.heap.size: 1024m` from the default > configuration? > > If > > > > this is the case, then I believe it was more of an unintentional > > artifact > > > > that it worked before and it has been corrected now so that one > needs > > to > > > > specify the memory of the JM process explicitly. Do you think it > would > > > help > > > > to explicitly state this in the release notes? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Till > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 7:01 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for preparing another RC! > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned in the previous RC thread, it would be super helpful > if > > > the > > > > > release notes that are part of the documentation can be included > [1]. > > > > It's > > > > > a significant time-saver to have read those first. > > > > > > > > > > I found one more non-backward compatible change that would be > worth > > > > > addressing/mentioning: > > > > > > > > > > It is now necessary to configure the jobmanager heap size in > > > > > flink-conf.yaml (with either jobmanager.heap.size > > > > > or jobmanager.memory.heap.size). Why would I not want to do that > > > anyways? > > > > > Well, we set it dynamically for a cluster deployment via the > > > > > flinkk8soperator, but the container image can also be used for > > testing > > > > with > > > > > local mode (./bin/jobmanager.sh start-foreground local). That will > > fail > > > > if > > > > > the heap wasn't configured and that's how I noticed it. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.11/release-notes/flink-1.11.html > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:18 AM Zhijiang < > wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com > > > > > .invalid> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #4 for the > version > > > > > 1.11.0, > > > > > > as follows: > > > > > > [ ] +1, Approve the release > > > > > > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific > > comments) > > > > > > > > > > > > The complete staging area is available for your review, which > > > includes: > > > > > > * JIRA release notes [1], > > > > > > * the official Apache source release and binary convenience > > releases > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > deployed to dist.apache.org [2], which are signed with the key > > with > > > > > > fingerprint 2DA85B93244FDFA19A6244500653C0A2CEA00D0E [3], > > > > > > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository > [4], > > > > > > * source code tag "release-1.11.0-rc4" [5], > > > > > > * website pull request listing the new release and adding > > > announcement > > > > > > blog post [6]. > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by > > > majority > > > > > > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Release Manager > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12346364 > > > > > > [2] > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.11.0-rc4/ > > > > > > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1377/ > > > > > > [5] > > https://github.com/apache/flink/releases/tag/release-1.11.0-rc4 > > > > > > [6] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/352 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
