The inclusion of ZOOKEEPER-2014 has been raised as a problem by Jordan (see the separate thread on this list). I don't feel I can cut a 3.5.3-alpha release until the issue has been resolved by the community. I was hoping to get a release candidate created before vacation starts, so please comment on that thread asap so that we can progress.
Patrick On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > We need to regenerate the documentation to include recent changes. I have > created ZK-2635 and assigned to myself. It should be simple enough, though. > I've marked the fix version to include 3.5.3 and 3.6.0, but I'm not sure if > anything has been merged recently into the 3.4 branch that had > documentation changes. If anyone is aware of such a change, please change > the jira accordingly. > > This is not necessarily a blocker, but there is one issue that we need to > resolve with our current workflow. Previously, we submitted patches by > uploading the patch and hitting the "Submit Patch" button. Submitting the > patch triggers the QA build, which executes the test script, which goes to > jira and fetches the patch to test. With pull requests, the process is > different. The github plugin triggers the build, which fetches the diff > from the PR and runs the test script. > > Ideally, if it is a pull request, we change the status of the jira to > "Patch Available", but we do not trigger the QA for jira patches. I don't > know how to do it, though, so the choices we have are: > > 1- To only change the status to "Patch Available" if there is a jira > patch, which is not ideal. > 2- To disable the jira patch QA and rely only on pull requests. > > Unless someone comes up with a solution that enables us to change the > status of the jira to path available and only triggers QA in the case there > is a jira patch, I believe the best option is number 2 and the [DISCUSS] > thread I started about this seems to indicate that others prefer that > option too. If folks feel it is necessary to vote to capture more precisely > the decision, I can start a vote thread on the dev list. > > -Flavio > > > > On 23 Nov 2016, at 17:39, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Forgot to mention. These will be our first releases using git rather than > > svn. Does anyone know of remaining issues we need to resolve related to > > this prior to cutting a release? > > > > Patrick > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi folks. Now that ZOOKEEPER-2014 has been committed I think we should > cut > >> a 3.5.3-alpha release. We're getting close to beta with that one > finalized. > >> There are about 10 blockers, although I have not recently gone through > and > >> triaged them > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa? > selectPageId=12327688 > >> note that about half of those are patch available, if you have some free > >> cycles please focus on these, here's the prioritized list: > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12336872&; > >> jql=project%20%3D%20zookeeper%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203. > >> 5.3%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20unresolved%20ORDER%20BY% > 20priority%20DESC > >> > >> I believe Rakesh (please confirm) is interested in releasing 3.4.10 once > >> ZOOKEEPER-1045 is committed. That patch has had extensive testing and > >> documentation (kudos Rakesh, et. al.) and is in final review -- unless > >> someone speaks up it will be committed soon, probably next week. Here's > the > >> prioritized list, not sure of those blockers really are blockers - > Flavio > >> do we still need to address the netty license issue: > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12338391&; > >> jql=project%20%3D%20zookeeper%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203. > >> 4.10%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20unresolved%20ORDER%20BY% > 20priority%20DESC > >> > >> Patrick > >> > >> > >
