My take: - ZK-1863 is pending review. It is a blocker and it can go in. See the jira for comments. - We can try to have ZK-1807 in for the first alpha. - I'd rather not have the first alpha depending on ZK-1919 and ZK-1910, we can leave it for the second alpha.
If you agree with this, then we should be able to cut a candidate by the end of this week. -Flavio On 15 Jul 2014, at 17:26, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > Per my previous note you can now see the c client test log output here > in the "build artifacts" section: > https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2372/ > > Patrick > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: >> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
