I'll check in ZOOKEEPER-1683.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Alexander Shraer <shra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > >>
