I'm seeing alot of test failures in testCurrentObserverIsParticipantInNewConfig could someone take a look? Seems related to ZOOKEEPER-1807 recent commit.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1807?focusedCommentId=14069024&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14069024 Patrick On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <rakeshr.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >> > >> >>> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> >> >>
