You may notice some back/forth on Apache Jenkins ZK jobs - I'm trying to fix some of the jobs that were broken during the recent host upgrade.
Patrick On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Michi Mutsuzaki <mi...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote: > 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 >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> > >>>
