Update: we're back to 8 blockers on 3.5.0 (not clear to me which one(s?) is new?)
Looks like the autoconf issue I reported is hitting the upgraded apache jenkins instances as well. I've updated the "archive" list to include the c tests stdout redirect. So while it won't go to console at least we can debug when there is a failure. Raul has been helping Bill with reviews for the jetty server support and it looks like that should be ready soon. Raul also requested that someone prioritize reviewing "ZOOKEEPER-1919 Update the C implementation of removeWatches to have it match ZOOKEEPER-1910" so that we can include it in 3.5.0. Flavio/Michi? Hongchao got a patch in to cleanup the flakey c client reconfig test - kudos on helping cleanup the build/test infra! Based on previous comments it looks like we're pretty close. Do folks feel comfortable with a 3.5.0 alpha at this point? (with a few pending as above) Patrick On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <r...@itevenworks.net> wrote: > On Jul 11, 2014 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? >> > > +1 > > -rgs > >> -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 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >
