On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Flavio for taking the discussion ahead. Thanks Michael for pointing > out these cases. > > >>> Looking at release notes: > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?p > rojectId=12310801&version=12334700 > >>> > >>> > >>> - [ZOOKEEPER-2396 <https://issues.apache.org/jir > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>] > >>> - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static > >>> > >>> There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9. Maybe > there > >>> was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we keep > this > >>> in relesae note or remove it? > > >It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either, > including or excluding it. > > I would wait to see others response. > > > >>> > >>> - [ZOOKEEPER-1676 <https://issues.apache.org/jir > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>] > >>> - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss > >>> > >>> There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9 either, as > >>> this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be > excluded > >>> in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information, though > I > >>> am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases. > > >Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem. > > I could see 'HowToRelease' page has specifically mentioned the excluded > categories as "Won' fix" and "Invalid" jira resolution. ZOOKEEPER-1676 > comes under 'Not A Problem' category. Perhaps we could revisit the > classifications and consider more cases like, Not a problem, Cannot > Reproduce, Not A Bug etc, if everyone thinks so. But I'm not sure how > updating the excluded category might reflect in our previously released > versions. > > Typically I removed the "fixed version" if it's not actually fixed. i.e. "wont fix" means I would clear the "fix version" as part of resolving the issue. Patrick > Reference:- > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToRelease page, > "Note that you need to exclude the won't fix or invalid tickets." > > Thanks, > Rakesh > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 27 Aug 2016, at 00:16, Michael Han <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Looking at release notes: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje > > ctId=12310801&version=12334700 > > > > > > > > > - [ZOOKEEPER-2396 <https://issues.apache.org/jir > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>] > > > - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static > > > > > > There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9. Maybe > there > > > was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we keep > this > > > in relesae note or remove it? > > > > It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either, > > including or excluding it. > > > > > > > > - [ZOOKEEPER-1676 <https://issues.apache.org/jir > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>] > > > - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss > > > > > > There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9 either, as > > > this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be > > excluded > > > in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information, > though I > > > am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases. > > > > Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem. > > > > -Flavio > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Abraham Fine <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > > >> > > >> shasum and md5sum are valid. PGP signature is valid. > > >> > > >> Java unit tests pass and was able to successfully test against a 3 > > server > > >> ensemble. > > >> > > >> Abe > > >> > > >>> On Aug 23, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> +1 xsum/sig are valid. RAT ran clean. I was able to compile the code > > and > > >>> successfully put a few ensemble sizes through their paces. > > >>> > > >>> fwiw I also did a "diff" btw 3.4.8 release artifact and this rc. > There > > >> were > > >>> a number of changed files, obviously. However I did not notice any > > >> missing > > >>> files, as we've seen with the previous rcs in this release candidate > > >> line. > > >>> afaict this artifact has all the right contents - i.e. similar to > > >> previous > > >>> releases. > > >>> > > >>> Patrick > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan < > > >> [email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> This is the third release candidate for 3.4.9. This candidate > removes > > >> the > > >>>> extra *.asc files found in the > > >>>> second candidate. > > >>>> > > >>>> This is a bugfix release candidate for 3.4.9. It fixes 21 issues, > > >> including > > >>>> issues that affect ACL cache > > >>>> in DataTree never removes entries, prevent multiple init of login > > >> object in > > >>>> each ZKSaslClient instance, > > >>>> ZK service becomes unavailable when leader fails to write > transaction > > >> log, > > >>>> upgrade netty version due > > >>>> to security vulnerability (CVE-2014-3488) and others. > > >>>> > > >>>> The full release notes are available at: > > >>>> > > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa? > > >>>> projectId=12310801&version=12334700 > > >>>> > > >>>> *** Please download, test and vote by August 30th 2016, 23:59 UTC+0. > > *** > > >>>> > > >>>> Source files: > > >>>> http://people.apache.org/~rakeshr/zookeeper-3.4.9-candidate-2 > > >>>> > > >>>> Maven staging repo: > > >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/org/ > > >>>> apache/zookeeper/zookeeper/3.4.9 > > >>>> > > >>>> The tag to be voted upon: > > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/zookeeper/tags/release-3.4.9-rc2 > > >>>> > > >>>> 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? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Rakesh > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers > > > Michael. > > > > >
