IIUC, the summary of this discussion is that no one (yet) sees the issues flagged as blockers for the 3.4.9 release. No one yet has decided to vote -1. (If anybody has concerns, I'm happy to create another release candidate.)
This [VOTE] is still open, so kindly do review the RC and vote. Thanks, Rakesh On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <rake...@apache.org> wrote: > OK, it would be good to update the existing list in 'HowToRelease' page so > that it will be clear to everyone. > > > Hi All, > > I'd request everyone to cast your vote on 3.4.9-RC2 and that would really > helpful to take the thread ahead. Thank you! > > Rakesh > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Issues that are "not a problem" are essentially no-ops. Including them is >> not wrong per se, but I'd say it is unnecessary and adds more lines to the >> release notes. Unless the goal of the release notes is to list the issues >> we investigated as part of the release, I'd say that going forward we >> should exclude issues marked as "not a problem". >> >> I don't see the need to -1 the RC2 based on the inclusion of ZK-1676, >> though. >> >> -Flavio >> >> >> > On 29 Aug 2016, at 05:22, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <rake...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > OK, I got it. Thanks a lot for the clarification. >> > >> > Rakesh >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> >> I would say it's acceptable to include 1676 in the release note. IMO we >> >> shouldn't list things in the release notes if they weren't addressed >> (typ >> >> fixed) in that release. However in this case I don't see why it's a >> very >> >> big deal - if folks are that interested in the issue they could >> quickly see >> >> (by opening the jira) what the resolution was. >> >> >> >> Patrick >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan < >> rake...@apache.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Thanks Patrick, I just referred 3.4.6 release note and I could see >> >> similar >> >>> category, ZOOKEEPER-1599 marked resolution as 'Not A Problem' and >> >> included >> >>> in 3.4.6 release note. Should we follow the same pattern and >> >>> include ZOOKEEPER-1676 also in 3.4.9 release note, please correct me >> if I >> >>> missed anything. >> >>> >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa? >> >>> projectId=12310801&version=12323310 >> >>> >> >>> Rakesh >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <phu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan < >> >>> rake...@apache.org> >> >>>> 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 <f...@apache.org> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 27 Aug 2016, at 00:16, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> 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 < >> >> a...@abrahamfine.com >> >>>> >> >>>>>> 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 <ph...@apache.org> >> >>>> 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 < >> >>>>>>>> rake...@apache.org> >> >>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >
