I'll create another candidate either today or tomorrow.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Hongchao Deng <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michi,
> What's the status in the release?
>
> - Hongchao Deng
>
>> From: [email protected]
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.1-alpha candidate 0
>> Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 06:39:05 +0000
>>
>>
>> OK, I got it. Thanks for the inputs.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Rakesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: 03 May 2015 04:15
>> To: DevZooKeeper
>> Cc: Michi Mutsuzaki
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.1-alpha candidate 0
>>
>> I'd say if it's a blocker and it's ready (or close to ready) then wait. Otw 
>> let's get the release out. It's ok for the alphas to have blockers, we'll 
>> catch them up in the next release.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan < 
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > It looks like we have couple of jira issues ready to check in to the
>> > branch-3.5 like,
>> > ZOOKEEPER-2174, ZOOKEEPER-2062 etc
>> >
>> > But these are not blockers for 3.5.1 release, should we wait for the
>> > 3.5.1 release and then push/commit these kinda issues into the project ?
>> >
>> > FYI: Presently we have only two issues marked for 3.5.1 ->
>> > ZOOKEEPER-2171(required) and ZOOKEEPER-2124.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks & Regards,
>> > Rakesh
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Michi Mutsuzaki <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > You can go a head and check it in.
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Camille Fournier
>> > > <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > Is it a problem if I put ZOOKEEPER-2173 into the 3.5 branch before
>> > > > this release? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2173
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <
>> > > [email protected]
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hi Michi,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On 26 April 2015 at 14:44, Michi Mutsuzaki <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Thank you everybody for voting. We are *not* releasing this
>> > candidate.
>> > > >> > There are 2 things to fix:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > - Update winconfig.h and the notice file (Michi)
>> > > >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2171 (Raul?)
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I'll get to  ZK-2171 tomorrow.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> -rgs
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > I'll create another candidate once these 2 issues are fixed.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Michi Mutsuzaki <
>> > > [email protected]>
>> > > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> > > Thanks Pat, I'll update winconfig.h and the notice file.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Hunt
>> > > >> > > <[email protected]>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> Looks like version strings are in src/c/include/winconfig.h
>> > > >> > >> that
>> > > need
>> > > >> > to be
>> > > >> > >> updated. They are still listed as 3.5.0.
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> I think you'll need to spin a new RC to address this.
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> You might update the notice file to include 2015 at the same
>> > > >> > >> time
>> > > >> (not a
>> > > >> > >> blocker typically though).
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> Patrick
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <
>> > > >> > [email protected]
>> > > >> > >>> wrote:
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >>> On 20 April 2015 at 13:03, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <
>> > > >> [email protected]
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >>> wrote:
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> > -1, alas.
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> > I think ZOOKEEPER-1506 could be problematic for some setups.
>> > > After
>> > > >> a
>> > > >> > >>> > couple of elections with a cluster of 5 participants and
>> > > >> > >>> > one
>> > > >> > observer, I
>> > > >> > >>> > end up with a participant that's unable to find the
>> > > >> > >>> > leader
>> > > because
>> > > >> it
>> > > >> > >>> does
>> > > >> > >>> > a reverse lookup (IP -> hostname) and ends up with a
>> > > >> > >>> > bogus
>> > > hostname
>> > > >> > that
>> > > >> > >>> it
>> > > >> > >>> > can't resolve:
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> > https://gist.github.com/rgs1/d11822799fdbbfa5d5f2
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> > I don't think the reverse lookup from QuorumCnxManager
>> > > >> > >>> > was
>> > done
>> > > >> > before,
>> > > >> > >>> > nor that it should be done. So it could cause issues in
>> > > >> > >>> > places
>> > > >> where
>> > > >> > >>> > reverse lookups aren't fully working. Surely, we could
>> > > >> > >>> > argue
>> > > that
>> > > >> > it's a
>> > > >> > >>> > DNS setup issue but I think we should avoid the extra
>> > > >> > >>> > lookup
>> > if
>> > > >> > possible.
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> > I'll dig in a bit deeper and try to come with a
>> > > >> > >>> > deterministic
>> > > >> repro.
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> Commented on ZOOKEEPER-1506: turns out that my issue was
>> > > >> > >>> with
>> > > reverse
>> > > >> > >>> lookup calls that were not introduced by that patch. They
>> > > >> > >>> seem
>> > to
>> > > >> have
>> > > >> > been
>> > > >> > >>> introduced by ZOOKEEPER-107, so they have been around for a
>> > while.
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> The tl;dr is that if your resolvers give you bad reverse
>> > > >> > >>> names,
>> > > >> you'll
>> > > >> > have
>> > > >> > >>> issues. It would nice to avoid these reverse lookups, so I
>> > > created:
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2171
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> After sorting this issue, I tested the following:
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> * many elections (which look quick)
>> > > >> > >>> * creating and deleting ephemerals in a loop (via zk-shell)
>> > > >> > >>> * phunt's smoke test scripts (comparable results to 3.5.0)
>> > > >> > >>> * partitioning and unpartioning an attached observer
>> > > >> > >>> * use zktraffic's fle-dump & zab-dump to inspect if there
>> > > >> > >>> were
>> > any
>> > > >> > bogus
>> > > >> > >>> FLE votes or ZAB messages [0]
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> All of this looks good! So +1 now :-)
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> -rgs
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> p.s.: fwiw, here's my test setup:
>> > > http://itevenworks.net/zk-releases
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> [0] https://github.com/twitter/zktraffic
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> > -rgs
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> > On 12 April 2015 at 14:58, Michi Mutsuzaki <
>> > > [email protected]>
>> > > >> > >>> wrote:
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> >> This is a release candidate for 3.5.1-alpha. The full
>> > > >> > >>> >> release
>> > > >> notes
>> > > >> > is
>> > > >> > >>> >> available at:
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310
>> > 801&version=12326786
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>> >> *** Please download, test and vote by April 25th 2015,
>> > > >> > >>> >> 23:59
>> > > >> UTC+0.
>> > > >> > ***
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>> >> Source files:
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> http://people.apache.org/~michim/zookeeper-3.5.1-alpha-candidate-
>> > > >> 0/
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>> >> Maven staging repo:
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/org/apache/zookee
>> > per/zookeeper/3.5.1-alpha/
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>> >> The tag to be voted upon:
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/zookeeper/tags/release-3.5.1-rc0
>> > > >> /
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>> >> ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign
>> > > >> > >>> >> the
>> > > >> > release:
>> > > >> > >>> >> http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>> >> Should we release this candidate?
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>> >> --Michi
>> > > >> > >>> >>
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>> >
>> > > >> > >>>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>

Reply via email to