Sorry for the confusion. This [VOTE] is still under way, so please do review the RC and vote.
The summary of this side discussion is that no one (yet) sees the issues flagged as blockers for the 3.5.2-alpha release. No one yet has decided to vote -1. --Chris Nauroth On 7/5/16, 4:26 PM, "Camille Fournier" <[email protected]> wrote: >Is this RC still under vote or is it pulled? It's hard to tell with these >threads what I should be looking for when evaluating it. > >On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> I filed ZOOKEEPER-2465 to track updating the copyright notice on all >> documentation pages. Edward, thank you for reporting the problem. >> >> --Chris Nauroth >> >> >> >> >> On 7/3/16, 12:02 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> On 03 Jul 2016, at 17:53, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> For my part, I got a successful full test run from RC1 before >>starting >> >>the >> >> [VOTE]. The problem with the silent failure of multi tests could >>have >> >> snuck past me easily though. (Flavio, thank you for filing >> >> ZOOKEEPER-2463.) I'm curious to hear test results from others who >>are >> >> trying RC1. >> > >> >The test failures seem to be related to test timing, not bugs, but I >> >haven't been able to confirm for the last two I mentioned. Granted that >> >timing is in some sense a bug, all I'm saying is that it doesn't seem >>to >> >indicate a regression or anything. >> > >> >> >> >> It looks like we also need an issue to track updating the copyright >> >>notice >> >> in the docs. I don't believe this is an ASF compliance problem in >>the >> >> same way that an erroneous NOTICE file would be, so I propose that we >> >> address it in 3.5.3. >> > >> >Agreed, we need an issue for that. >> > >> >> >> >> Flavio, you suggested filing a blocker for the >>ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc >> >> failure. Did you want that targeted to 3.5.2 or 3.5.3? >> >> >> > >> >I'm suggesting as a blocker for 3.5.3, I think we should proceed with >> >3.5.2 as is and give some love to the C client in the next release. >> > >> >> Overall, how are people feeling about the RC1 [VOTE] at this point? >>Is >> >> anyone considering a -1, or shall we proceed (keeping in mind it's an >> >> alpha) with the intent of fixing things in a more rapid 3.5.3 release >> >> cycle? >> > >> >I'd say we proceed. >> > >> >-Flavio >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/3/16, 8:43 AM, "Flavio Junqueira" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> The issue with the TestReconfigServer test is that the client port >>is >> >>> still used and we get a bind exception, which prevents the server >>from >> >>> starting. To verify this locally, I simply added some code to retry >>and >> >>> it works fine with that fix. Going forward we need a better fox. >> >>> >> >>> I haven't able to figure out yet the issue with the >> >>> Zookeeper_simpleSystem tests. >> >>> >> >>> I have also found something strange with the multi tests. I have >> >>>created >> >>> ZK-2463 for this problem and made it a blocker for 3.5.3. >> >>> >> >>> -Flavio >> >>> >> >>>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:25, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I have spun a new ubuntu VM to check the C failures. I get three >> >>>> failures with the new installation: >> >>>> >> >>>> Zookeeper_simpleSystem::testFirstServerDown : assertion : elapsed >> >>>>10911 >> >>>> tests/TestClient.cc:411: Assertion: equality assertion failed >> >>>> [Expected: -101, Actual : -4] >> >>>> tests/TestClient.cc:322: Assertion: assertion failed [Expression: >> >>>> ctx.waitForConnected(zk)] >> >>>> Failures !!! >> >>>> Run: 43 Failure total: 2 Failures: 2 Errors: 0 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> TestReconfigServer::testRemoveFollower/usr/bin/java >> >>>> ZooKeeper JMX enabled by default >> >>>> Using config: ./../../build/test/test-cppunit/conf/0.conf >> >>>> Starting zookeeper ... FAILED TO START >> >>>> zktest-mt: tests/ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc:61: void >> >>>> ZooKeeperQuorumServer::start(): Assertion `system(command.c_str()) >>== >> >>>>0' >> >>>> failed. >> >>>> /bin/bash: line 5: 47059 Aborted (core dumped) >> >>>> ZKROOT=./../.. CLASSPATH=$CLASSPATH:$CLOVER_HOME/lib/clover.jar >> >>>> ${dir}$tst >> >>>> >> >>>> -Flavio >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:19, Edward Ribeiro >><[email protected]> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Flavio, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected] >> >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>>>> Hey Eddie, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> A few comments on your points: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> - the copyright notice is still dating "2008-2013". It's worth >> >>>>>> updating to >> >>>>>> the current year? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Where are you seeing this? The NOTICE file is correct from what I >>can >> >>>>> see. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Ops, sorry. I was referring to the PDFs and HTMLs in the docs/ >> >>>>> folder. Even after running "ant docs" the footnote has "2008-2013" >> >>>>> copyright. Images attached. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> - I consistently ran on an test error equals to the one at >> >>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console >> >>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console> >> >>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console >> >>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I think this is ZK-2152, which Chris has moved to 3.5.3, so even >> >>>>> though it isn't ideal. it is expected. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Got it. :) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> - Also this one: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/% >> >>>>>>3C >> >>>>>> 1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>< >> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/ >> >>>>>>%3 >> >>>>>> C1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I don't know if there is a jira for this one. If not, better >>create >> >>>>> one and make it a blocker. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Okay, gonna look for and do this. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> - In fact, there were 14 failing tests total (I suspect all of >>them >> >>>>>> related >> >>>>>> to the C tests). Any ideas? A couple of flacky tests? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> In general, having a release with so many tests failing is bad. I >> >>>>> didn't get these test failures, so it would be great to report >>them >> >>>>>or >> >>>>> make sure that there are jiras for it. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Right. I was only skeptical of my own tests because I ran the >>unit >> >>>>> tests on a relatively old Ubuntu version, even though it was Java >> >>>>>1.7. >> >>>>> So, I am running the tests on a newer Linux soon just to make >>sure it >> >>>>> was not a false negative. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Test failures are possibly an indication that something is bad >>with >> >>>>> the RC, so I wouldn't have +1 it if I had observed all those. It >> >>>>>might >> >>>>> be ok given that this is still labeled alpha. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Excuse me. I only +1'ed because I suspect the errors are >>restricted >> >>>>> to the C binding and my Ubuntu version, etc. But I should have >> >>>>> researched further before giving +1, nevertheless. Point taken. :) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Edward >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>
