Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze and deprecation work for 2.0

A side effect of the amount of deprecation FLIPs is that it takes up quite a bit of time to verify them (if you want the community to do a proper check). Individual FLIPs might not be that big. And of course, one could argue that we can distribute the work to multiple people as a community effort.

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze and deprecation work for 2.0

Hi Xintong, It's fine to me to accept deprecations that only add annotations and JavaDocs. We'll make a formal announcement later about 1.18 feature freeze and plans on x-team testing, and please let us know (make a reply in that thread) before you wanna do the deprecation action. Best, Qingsheng

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze and deprecation work for 2.0

Thanks for the response, Qingsheng. I'm fine with not allowing new features after the 1.18 freeze. Just want to double-check, how about the FLIPs that purely mark things as `@Deprecated` without adding anything new? Do we agree to treat them as "not new features"? Best, Xintong On Wed, Jul 2

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze and deprecation work for 2.0

(Sorry for resending this. I forgot to cc the dev mailing list) Hi Matthias and Xintong, Thanks for raising the question! We brought it to the 1.18 release sync on Jul 26th, and we decided to stick to the original schedule of 1.18 and will not accept new features, including those deprecation work

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze and deprecation work for 2.0

Good question. CC-ed the release managers. My 2-cents: I think the purpose of feature freeze is to prevent new feature / improvement changes from destabilizing the code base, in order to get a stable and verified release. Based on this, I'd suggest: - Considering FLIPs that purely mark an API as d

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

Hi Yuval, I think you are good to go, since there is no objection from PMC. Best, Kurt On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:48 AM Yuval Itzchakov wrote: > Hi Guowei, > > Who should I speak to regarding this? I am at the final stages of the PR I > believe (Shengkai is kindly helping me make things work)

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

Hi, Yuval Thanks for your contribution. I am not a SQL expert, but it seems to be beneficial to users, and the amount of code is not much and only left is the test. Therefore, I am open to this entry into rc1. But according to the rules, you still have to see if there are other PMC's objections wi

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

Hi All, I would really love to merge https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/15307 prior to 1.13 release cutoff, it just needs some more tests which I can hopefully get to today / tomorrow morning. This is a critical fix as now predicate pushdown won't work for any stream which generates a watermark

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

Thanks Dawid, I have merged FLINK-20320. Best, Kurt On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:49 PM Dawid Wysakowicz wrote: > Hi all, > > @Kurt @Arvid I think it's fine to merge those two, as they are pretty much > finished. We can wait for those two before creating the RC0. > > @Leonard Personally I'd be ok w

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

Hi all, @Kurt @Arvid I think it's fine to merge those two, as they are pretty much finished. We can wait for those two before creating the RC0. @Leonard Personally I'd be ok with 3 more days for that single PR. I find the request reasonable and I second that it's better to have a proper review ra

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

Hi Dawid and Guowei, I'd like to merge [FLINK-13550][rest][ui] Vertex Flame Graph [1]. We are pretty much just waiting for AZP to turn green, it's separate from other components, and it's a super useful feature for Flink users. Best, Arvid [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/15054 On Thu,

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

Hi Guowei and Dawid, I want to request the permission to merge this feature [1], it's a useful improvement to sql client and won't affect other components too much. We were plan to merge it yesterday but met some tricky multi-process issue which has a very high possibility hanging the tests. It to

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

Hi, community: Friendly reminder that today (3.31) is the last day of feature development. Under normal circumstances, you will not be able to submit new features from tomorrow (4.1). Tomorrow we will create 1.13.0-rc0 for testing, welcome to help test together. After the test is relatively stable

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

+1 for the 31st of March for the feature freeze. Cheers, Till On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:12 AM Robert Metzger wrote: > +1 for March 31st for the feature freeze. > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:39 PM Dawid Wysakowicz > wrote: > > > Thank you Thomas! I'll definitely check the issue you linked.

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

+1 for March 31st for the feature freeze. On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:39 PM Dawid Wysakowicz wrote: > Thank you Thomas! I'll definitely check the issue you linked. > > Best, > > Dawid > > On 23/03/2021 20:35, Thomas Weise wrote: > > Hi Dawid, > > > > Thanks for the heads up. > > > > Regarding th

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

Thank you Thomas! I'll definitely check the issue you linked. Best, Dawid On 23/03/2021 20:35, Thomas Weise wrote: > Hi Dawid, > > Thanks for the heads up. > > Regarding the "Rebase and merge" button. I find that merge option useful, > especially for small simple changes and for backports. The f

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze date for 1.13

Hi Dawid, Thanks for the heads up. Regarding the "Rebase and merge" button. I find that merge option useful, especially for small simple changes and for backports. The following should help to safeguard from the issue encountered previously: https://github.com/jazzband/pip-tools/issues/1085 Than

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze for Flink 1.7

Thanks for the feedback. For FLINK-10122, the proper solution would require the redesigned source interface which will most likely not make it into the release. I think the community is working hard on implementing it as fast as possible, though. Concerning state migration, Gordon is the best to

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze for Flink 1.7

What would this timing mean for the epic around state schema evolution and state migration? On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:43 AM Piotr Nowojski wrote: > Hi, > > I think that’s a good time for the release, will give us some time before > holidays season for potential bug fixes. > > Piotrek > > > On 29

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze for Flink 1.7

Hi, I think that’s a good time for the release, will give us some time before holidays season for potential bug fixes. Piotrek > On 29 Sep 2018, at 05:08, Steven Wu wrote: > > Please prioritize a proper long-term fix for this issue. it is a big > scalability issue for high-parallelism job (e.

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze for Flink 1.7

Please prioritize a proper long-term fix for this issue. it is a big scalability issue for high-parallelism job (e.g. over 1,000). FLINK-10122 KafkaConsumer should use partitionable state over union state if partition discovery is not active On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:20 AM Till Rohrmann wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature freeze for Flink 1.6

I assume that we reached a silent consensus here. I will then announce the feature freeze date on the dev mailing list. Cheers, Till On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:31 PM Till Rohrmann wrote: > Dear community, > > as discussed in the Flink 1.6 feature thread [1], the proposed release > date of *end o

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

It's not really a release candidate in that sense, but a common test release that everyone should work against. This gives us a consistent view about the state at commit X, as opposed to testing directly against the branch where it is likely everyone works on a different version. On 08.05.20

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

It depends :) If the unstable tests are caused by a bug in the tests itself, its not an issue. If its a blocking issue in one of the core components, I'll immediately create a new RC. Part of the reason why I'm creating the RC0 is also to ensure that the build infrastructure properly works. On Mon

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hi Robert, Thanks for starting the process! My only remark is that given that the master is unstable, does it make sense to create an RC0? Kostas > On May 8, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Robert Metzger wrote: > > Great! > It also looks like the other big features made it also into master this > weeken

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Great! It also looks like the other big features made it also into master this weekend. I'll now create the feature branch and create the testing RC0. On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Fabian Hueske wrote: > I merged the last to major features for the Table API / SQL (time > indicators and retra

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

I merged the last to major features for the Table API / SQL (time indicators and retraction support) to master. We will need to work on some smaller issues for those features which will take a few more days (1 week max), but the big changes are in. Working on those final issue does not block a rel

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Yes, I second Ufuk, thanks Robert and Aljoscha for the effort. Thanks to the community for hard work on the features. On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Ufuk Celebi wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote: > > Also, if no release candidate would be created today, it would not

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote: > Also, if no release candidate would be created today, it would not make any > difference anyways... If no one tests a RC (if created today) over the weekend it also wouldn't make a difference. ;-) Thanks to all for chiming in here and Robert

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

st regards, > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Robert Metzger [mailto:rmetz...@apache.org] > > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 10:43 AM > > To: dev@flink.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze > > > > I've checked the releas

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

> > -Original Message- > From: Robert Metzger [mailto:rmetz...@apache.org] > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 10:43 AM > To: dev@flink.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze > > I've checked the release status again, and it seems that some more issues > m

RE: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Message- From: Robert Metzger [mailto:rmetz...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 10:43 AM To: dev@flink.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze I've checked the release status again, and it seems that some more issues made it into master, while other very big new features are

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

I've checked the release status again, and it seems that some more issues made it into master, while other very big new features are still being finished (incremental checkpointing, retractions, serializer upgrades and automatic buffer management). I'll publish the first, non-voting, testing only

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

This is the list of blocking issues for Flink 1.3: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-5740?jql=project%20%3D%20FLINK%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.3.0

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Robert, I'd like to see FLINK-5974 (Mesos DNS support) added to the list of important issues. A PR is ready. On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Kostas Kloudas wrote: > The only thing that I want to add in the features to be added for 1.3 > is the

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

The only thing that I want to add in the features to be added for 1.3 is the NOT pattern for the CEP library. There is an open PR here: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3798 which is not far from getting in. Kostas > On May 2, 2017, at 12:10 PM,

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Thanks a lot Ufuk for starting the discussion regarding the 1.3 feature freeze. I didn't feature freeze yesterday (Monday) because it was a public holiday here in Germany. I haven't made up my mind whether to do the feature freeze today or not. Many important features seem to be close to completi

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Thanks all for the lively discussion about the feature freeze and how to proceed. Because we committed to a time-based release schedule, we should not break the feature freeze too badly, or we would just disable the time-based-release-policy at the very first time it would trigger. Here are a few

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hi, I have 2 parts to discuss about delaying the feature freeze for a bit: 1. Allow upgrades to state serializers (FLINK-6178) The feature is split up into 2 PRs, one of which is already open and the second one coming up very soon. PR #1 reconfigurable TypeSerializers: https://github.com/apache/

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

FLINK-5892 has been merged. For FLINK-4545 (replacing numNetworkBuffer parameter) a PR is also still open and could use a second pair of eyes. On 28.04.2017 17:03, Kurt Young wrote: Hi Flavio, I have also fix the issue in 1.2 branch, but the next release will be 1.2.2 Best, Kurt On Fri, Ap

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hi Flavio, I have also fix the issue in 1.2 branch, but the next release will be 1.2.2 Best, Kurt On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > Flavio: > Have you seen this (w.r.t. 1.2.1) ? > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/Flink/VkLeQejxLg24Lk0D1?subj=+ > RESULT+VOTE+Release+Apache+Flink+1+2

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Flavio: Have you seen this (w.r.t. 1.2.1) ? http://search-hadoop.com/m/Flink/VkLeQejxLg24Lk0D1?subj=+RESULT+VOTE+Release+Apache+Flink+1+2+1+RC2+ On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:07 AM, Flavio Pompermaier wrote: > Any chance to cherry-pick this also into 1.2.1? We're usign Flink 1.2.0 in > production a

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Any chance to cherry-pick this also into 1.2.1? We're usign Flink 1.2.0 in production and maybe an upgrade to 1.2.1 would be a safer option in the short term.. Best, Flavio On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > Ah, I see. The fix for that has been merged into master so it w

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Ah, I see. The fix for that has been merged into master so it will be release in Flink 1.3. > On 28. Apr 2017, at 13:50, Flavio Pompermaier wrote: > > Sorry, you're right Aljosha..the issue number is correct, the link is > wrong! The correct one is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-63

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Sorry, you're right Aljosha..the issue number is correct, the link is wrong! The correct one is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6398 On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > I think there might be a typo. We haven’t yet reached issue number 6389, > if I’m not mista

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

I think there might be a typo. We haven’t yet reached issue number 6389, if I’m not mistaken. The latest as I’m writing this is 6410. > On 28. Apr 2017, at 10:00, Flavio Pompermaier wrote: > > If it's not a problem it will be great for us to include also FLINK-6398 >

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

If it's not a problem it will be great for us to include also FLINK-6398 if it's not a big deal Best, Flavio On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Zhuoluo Yang wrote: > Hi Devs, > > Thanks for the release plan. > > Could you also please add the feat

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hi Devs, Thanks for the release plan. Could you also please add the feature FLINK-6196 Support dynamic schema in Table Function? I’d like to update the code as comments left on PR today. I will try to make sure the code is updated before the Ap

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hello, Thanks for starting this thread. It would be great to see the following features available in Flink 1.3: * Support for complex schema: FLINK-6033, FLINK-6377 * Various improvements on SQL over group windows: FLINK-6335, FLINK-6373 * StreamTableSink for JDBC and Cassandra: FLINK-6281, FLINK

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hi Ufuk Incremental checkpointing can significantly improve the performance of checkpointing. I hope it can be included in release 1.3. I am working with Stefan on the last subtask, which attempts to implement incremental checkpointing in RocksDB state backend (FLINK-6364). Without future opti

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hello, FLINK-5892 (Restoring state by operator) is also nearing completion, but with only 1 day left before the weekend we're cutting it really short. Since this eliminates a major pain point when updating jobs, as it allows the modification of chains, another day or 2 would be good i think.

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hi Ufuk, I'd like to get FLINK-6013 (Adding Datadog Http metrics reporter) into release 1.3. It's in the final state of code review in https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3736 Thanks, Bowen On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> wrote: > Hi

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hi everybody, from an Table API / SQL point of view, three major features are not completed yet: - user-defined aggregation functions: Most of the preparation work is done. There is one PR missing to actually register and analyze UDAGGs. - retraction support: This feature was developed in a featur

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hi Ufuk, Thanks for the heads-up. In terms of table API and SQL, I am hoping we can get the following features (which have not completed merged yet) included in 1.3: 1. UDAGG (FLINK-5564), I am working on the last PR (FLINK-5906) to close this feature. 2. Retract (FLINK-6047), we are planning to

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

The FLINK-6364 seems need an accompanying FLIP [1] to help review. I dont see for this one in the list of existing proposals. - Henry [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:39

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature Freeze

Hi Ufuk, Thanks for starting this discussion! One feature that immediately comes to my mind is incremental checkpointing given it's production impact. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6364 It would be good to get some better understanding how the implementation effort is going and wh