On 2 July 2014 21:19, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > Update: we're down to 7 blockers on 5.1.0 (from 8 in the last check). > 1810 is waiting on feedback from Michi, and Camille is threatening to > commit 1863. I see some great progress in general on the patch > availables queue, which is great to see. > > So here's something else we might consider - should we drop jdk6 > support from 3.5. It's long since EOL by Oracle but I suspect some > folks are still using ZK with 6. We gotta move forward though, can't > support it forever. Thoughts? Note that we are currently > building/testing trunk against jdk6, 7 and 8. > https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/ >
Extra eyes/review for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1807 would be appreciated (otherwise anyone using Observers with the upcoming alpha release will see there network usage go wild...). -rgs > Patrick > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira > <fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > According to me, ZK-1810 should be in already, but I need a +1 there. I > think Michi hasn't checked in because LETest failed in the last QA run > there. However, that patch doesn't affect LETest, and in fact it fails in > trunk intermittently, so the test failure doesn't seem to be related to the > patch. > > > > I haven't checked ZK-1863, so I can't say anything concrete about it. > > > > -Flavio > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:53 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> > >>Hi Flavio, do you think those jiras can get reviewed/finalized before > >>the end of the week? I'd like to try cutting an RC soonish... > >> > >>Patrick > >> > >> > >>On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Flavio Junqueira > >><fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >>> +1 for the plan of releasing alpha versions. > >>> > >>> I'd like to have ZK-1818 (ZK-1810) and ZK-1863 in. They are both patch > available. ZK-1870 is in trunk, but it is still open because we need a 3.4 > patch. > >>> > >>> -Flavio > >>> > >>> > >>> On 26 Jun 2014, at 01:07, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hey folks, we've been talking about it for a while, a few people have > >>>> mentioned on the list as well as contacted me personally that they > >>>> would like to see some progress on the first 3.5 release. Every > >>>> release is a compromise, if we wait for perfection we'll never get > >>>> anything out the door. 3.5 has tons of great new features, lots of > >>>> hard work, let's get it out in a release so that folks can use it, > >>>> test it, and give feedback. > >>>> > >>>> Jenkins jobs have been pretty stable except for the known flakey test > >>>> ZOOKEEPER-1870 which Flavio committed today to trunk. Note that > >>>> jenkins has also been verifying the code on jdk7 and jdk8. > >>>> > >>>> Here's my thinking again on how we should plan our releases: > >>>> > >>>> I don't think we'll be able to do a 3.5.x-stable for some time. What I > >>>> think we should do instead is similar to what we did for 3.4. (this is > >>>> also similar to what Hadoop did during their Hadoop 2 release cycle) > >>>> Start with a series of alpha releases, something people can run and > >>>> test with, once we address all the blockers and feel comfortable with > >>>> the apis & remaining jiras we then switch to beta. Once we get some > >>>> good feedback we remove the alpha/beta moniker and look at making it > >>>> "stable'. At some later point it will become the "current/stable" > >>>> release, taking over from 3.4.x. > >>>> > >>>> e.g. > >>>> 3.5.0-alpha (8 blockers) > >>>> 3.5.1-alpha (3 blockers) > >>>> 3.5.2-alpha (0 blockers) > >>>> 3.5.3-beta (apis locked) > >>>> 3.5.4-beta > >>>> 3.5.5-beta > >>>> 3.5.6 (no longer considered alpha/beta but also not "stable" vs 3.4.x, > >>>> maybe use it for production but we still expect things to shake out) > >>>> 3.5.7 > >>>> .... > >>>> 3.5.x - ready to replace 3.4 releases for production use, stable, > etc... > >>>> > >>>> There are 8 blockers currently, are any of these something that should > >>>> hold up 3.5.0-alpha? > >>>> > >>>> I'll hold open the discussion for a couple days. If folks find this a > >>>> reasonable plan I'll start the ball rolling to cut an RC. > >>>> > >>>> Patrick > >>> > >> > >> > >> >
