I think that would be fine. It would also allow other people to more easily try out the release and provide additional feedback.
Patrick On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Just so that we don´t delay too much, what if we release an alpha version > without 1863 and 1807, and do another one in 2-3 weeks time? > > -Flavio > > > On Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:12 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés > <r...@itevenworks.net> wrote: > > >> >> >>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 >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
