I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally on two machines. I don't currently have access to the build machine, but I can try to ask for access. Unless anyone has a better suggestion, we could remove the failing test in the meanwhile and open a JIRA to add it back...
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> >
