+1 for having an RC this week. Since this is an alpha release, I think 72 biz hours is enough for the vote.
-Flavio > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:ph...@apache.org] > Sent: 21 July 2014 18:55 > To: DevZooKeeper > Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning > > 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 > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >>
