lgtm +1
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:37 PM, FPJ <fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > +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 > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>> >>>>>>> > > >> >>> >>>>>> > > >> >>> >>>>>> > > >> >>> >>>>>> > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> > >
