can we also have ZOOKEEPER-1683 in ? Camille gave a +1 and all subsequent changes were formatting as suggested by Rakesh.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm concerned that the CI tests are all failing due to, for e.g. > findbugs issues. At the very least our build/test/ci should be pretty > clean - some flakeys is ok (the recent startServer fix and some other > flakeys that have been addressed go a long way on that issue) but I > think the findbugs problem should be cleaned up before we cut a > release. I started a separate thread to discuss the findbugs issue. > > Otw we seem to be in ok shape - 1863 is in. > > Anyone have a chance to give feedback to Raul on 1919? > > Patrick > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Flavio Junqueira > <fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >
