On 18 July 2014 10:32, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > 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. >
How are things looking? Is it likely that we can have a 3.5.0 alpha release week or are we still blocked on Jenkins? -rgs > 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 > >>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> > > >>> >
