Thanks. I realized that just after posting and corrected it already in
the new thread. Didn't want to post to this thread again. Now look how
that went :)
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> @Max, this issue is only relevant for 1.1.x AFAIK. The 1.0.x series does
> not hav
@Max, this issue is only relevant for 1.1.x AFAIK. The 1.0.x series does
not have that bug.
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 at 10:21 Maximilian Michels wrote:
> +1 also from my side for releasing the RC as 1.0.2. We'll collect new
> issues in the thread Robert opened.
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Ro
+1 also from my side for releasing the RC as 1.0.2. We'll collect new
issues in the thread Robert opened.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Robert Metzger wrote:
> I started a new thread for the 1.0.3 release to collect all the JIRAs there.
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Maximilian Michels
This vote has passed with 3 binding +1 votes. Thanks to everyone who
contributed and tested the release candidate.
+1s:
Robert Metzger (binding)
Fabian Hueske (binding)
Aljoscha Krettek (binding)
There are no 0s or -1s.
I'll finalize and package this release asap.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:04 P
I started a new thread for the 1.0.3 release to collect all the JIRAs there.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> This is also fairly critical for Scala shell users:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3701
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Till Rohrmann
> w
This is also fairly critical for Scala shell users:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3701
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Till Rohrmann wrote:
> I found another critical issue for the next bug fix release:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3800
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at
I found another critical issue for the next bug fix release:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3800
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> +1, the releases are very lightweight if we only add few commits
>
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 at 10:48 Gyula Fóra wrote:
>
> > +1
+1, the releases are very lightweight if we only add few commits
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 at 10:48 Gyula Fóra wrote:
> +1 from me as well :)
>
> Till Rohrmann ezt írta (időpont: 2016. ápr. 21.,
> Cs,
> 10:34):
>
> > +1 for Robert's proposal.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Robert Metzger
>
+1 from me as well :)
Till Rohrmann ezt írta (időpont: 2016. ápr. 21., Cs,
10:34):
> +1 for Robert's proposal.
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Robert Metzger
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm in favor of bringing this RC out as Flink 1.0.2 for the following
> > reasons:
> > - The vote is over
+1 for Robert's proposal.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Robert Metzger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm in favor of bringing this RC out as Flink 1.0.2 for the following
> reasons:
> - The vote is over today and we have 3 +1 votes
> - At least one production user (Konstantin) urgently needs a fix contain
Hi,
I'm in favor of bringing this RC out as Flink 1.0.2 for the following
reasons:
- The vote is over today and we have 3 +1 votes
- At least one production user (Konstantin) urgently needs a fix contained
in the RC (It contains more critical fixes from other prod users as well)
- Gyula has a work
Yeah, sorry, I meant release, not RC.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Fabian Hueske wrote:
> Ah, OK. Thanks Gyula for clarifying.
>
> Just had a look at the PR. The fix seems to be quite straightforward.
> If you can validate the fix tomorrow and we include it, we could release
> 1.0.2 early ne
Ah, OK. Thanks Gyula for clarifying.
Just had a look at the PR. The fix seems to be quite straightforward.
If you can validate the fix tomorrow and we include it, we could release
1.0.2 early next week.
2016-04-20 22:11 GMT+02:00 Gyula Fóra :
> Fabian, I think Ufuk meant about 2 weeks for the ne
Fabian, I think Ufuk meant about 2 weeks for the next bugfix release not RC.
I have actually prepared a PR that should fix this problem:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1919 regardless of how we decide.
I can only test this tomorrow though in the production environment.
I can work around thi
Would it take two weeks to fix FLINK-3790 or is there another reason why
the next RC would be available in 2 weeks?
We released Flink 1.0.1 14 days ago.
So we might ship another release in 2 weeks no?
2016-04-20 21:51 GMT+02:00 Konstantin Knauf :
> Hi Ufuk,
>
> for our production use-case FLINK-
Hi Ufuk,
for our production use-case FLINK-3688 is very important, so we would
appreciate a quick 1.0.2 release. If you guys can take this into
consideration, this would be great.
Cheers,
Konstantin
On 20.04.2016 20:54, Ufuk Celebi wrote:
> No problem, Trevor! Thanks for reporting this anyways
No problem, Trevor! Thanks for reporting this anyways. And thanks to
Chiwan and Aljoscha for looking into it as well.
I had an offline chat with Gyula about the rolling file sink problem
(FLINK-3790) and it looks like this a big issue for their use case
against the production HDFS cluster (HA, def
I also confirmed. My bad.
Trevor Grant
Data Scientist
https://github.com/rawkintrevo
http://stackexchange.com/users/3002022/rawkintrevo
http://trevorgrant.org
*"Fortunate is he, who is able to know the causes of things." -Virgil*
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> Ch
I found a potentially blocker issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3790
What do you think?
Gyula
Aljoscha Krettek ezt írta (időpont: 2016. ápr. 20.,
Sze, 15:30):
> Chiwan is right. I just downloaded the release binary again and verified
> that the problem mentioned in the issue
Chiwan is right. I just downloaded the release binary again and verified
that the problem mentioned in the issue does not occur:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3701
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 at 14:51 Chiwan Park wrote:
> AFAIK, FLINK-3701 is about Flink 1.1-SNAPSHOT, not Flink 1.0. We ca
AFAIK, FLINK-3701 is about Flink 1.1-SNAPSHOT, not Flink 1.0. We can go forward.
Regards,
Chiwan Park
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 9:33 PM, Trevor Grant wrote:
>
> -1
>
> Not a PMC so my down vote doesn't mean anything but...
>
> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1913
>
> https://issues.apache.o
-1
Not a PMC so my down vote doesn't mean anything but...
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1913
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3701
A busted scala shell is a blocker imho.
Trevor Grant
Data Scientist
https://github.com/rawkintrevo
http://stackexchange.com/users/3002022/rawkin
+1
I eyeballed the changes and nothing looks suspicious.
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 at 13:21 Fabian Hueske wrote:
> Thanks Ufuk for preparing the RC.
>
> - Checked the diff against release 1.0.1. No dependencies were added or
> modified.
> - Checked signatures and hashes of all release artifacts.
>
>
Thanks Ufuk for preparing the RC.
- Checked the diff against release 1.0.1. No dependencies were added or
modified.
- Checked signatures and hashes of all release artifacts.
+1 to release this RC.
Thanks, Fabian
2016-04-19 21:34 GMT+02:00 Robert Metzger :
> Thank you for creating another bugfi
Thank you for creating another bugfix release of the 1.0 release Ufuk!
+1 for releasing this proposed RC.
- Checked some flink-dist jars for correctly shaded guava classes
- Started Flink in local mode and ran some examples
- Checked the staging repository
- Checked the quickstarts for the sca
Dear Flink community,
Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Flink version 1.0.2.
The commit to be voted on:
d39af152a166ddafaa2466cdae82695880893f3e
Branch:
release-1.0.2-rc3 (see
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf/flink/?p=flink.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release-1.
26 matches
Mail list logo
