I fixed a number of issues. I also started a few threads with builds@ - the ulimit issue is still outstanding. Hongchao and I worked through a number of findbugs issues, it's not closed yet but it's pretty close.
I don't see why we can't create an RC and start voting this week though. Anyone disagree? How long should we let the vote run, the std 72 biz hours or should we plan for more to allow folks more time to test? Patrick On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <r...@itevenworks.net> wrote: > 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 >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> > >> >>> >>
