Sorry, correction, I just followed up on ZOOKEEPER-2136, patch is not ready, and maybe not even a blocker for 3.6.0?
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Norbert Kalmar <nkal...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Fangmin, > > I checked all 3 PRs, looks like they pretty much reviewed, some minor > questions remain. > But we have 302 tickets open where fixVersion is 3.6.0, good news is only > 1 blocker (ZOOKEEPER-2136), which already has a patch. I'll see that this > blocker gets committed. > There is also 9 critical for 3.6.0. > > Regards, > Norbert > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:27 AM Fangmin Lv <lvfang...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It's great to have a 3.6.0 release, currently all the FB contributed >> features has been running inside FB for more than a month, so it >> should be stable enough for community to use. >> >> Also I agreed with Patrick's point to review all flags and consider to >> turn >> on by default. >> >> For the pending PRs, the following might be higher priority and would be >> nice to include in the 3.6.0 release: >> >> * ZOOKEEPER-3356: Implement advanced Netty flow control based on feedback >> from ZK to avoid OOM issue >> * ZOOKEEPER-3145: Avoid watch missing issue due to stale pzxid when >> replaying CloseSession txn with fuzzy snapshot >> * ZOOKEEPER-3240: Close socket on Learner shutdown to avoid dangling >> socket >> >> Thanks, >> Fangmin >> >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 9:21 AM Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > Good idea. Agree on including anything we've postponed to a new cycle - >> the >> > patch from mapr is an obvious one to consider. >> > >> > We should also look at things we've disabled by default and consider >> > whether we can turn them on by default. If not why not, and what can we >> do >> > to fix this in a subsequent release. >> > >> > Have we deprecated anything that we should now remove? >> > >> > Also a good time to review the state of Java versions and make changes >> wrt >> > supported versions and so forth. >> > >> > There was a proposal to remove contribs, or at least consider the ones >> that >> > are still valuable vs moving some out. We should do that as well. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Patrick >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 9:02 AM Jordan Zimmerman < >> > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > On Persistent/Recursive watches: I’m willing to rebase, etc if there’s >> > > confidence it will be merged. >> > > >> > > ==================== >> > > Jordan Zimmerman >> > > >> > > > On Jun 15, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Andor Molnar >> <an...@cloudera.com.invalid >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi Enrico! >> > > > >> > > > Very good point, I entirely support the idea. >> > > > >> > > > Question to Friends@Facebook and Twitter contributors: how many >> > > outstanding >> > > > Jiras/PRs do you have which you would like to see in 3.6? >> > > > >> > > > I'd also like to highlight the long outstanding PR from Mapr: >> > > > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/730 >> > > > >> > > > And some great new features which are still looking for to be >> merged: >> > > > - Persistent recursive watchers: >> > > > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/136 >> > > > - Enforce client auth: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/118 >> > > > - Slow operation log >> > > > - Jetty port unification >> > > > >> > > > Regards, >> > > > Andor >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Enrico Olivelli < >> eolive...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> Hi Zookeepers ! >> > > >> I checked on JIRA and it seems that master in good shape, no real >> > > blockers >> > > >> that mine the stability of the code. >> > > >> >> > > >> We have plenty of cool pull requests almost ready to be merged >> (mostly >> > > from >> > > >> Facebook friends and Twitter fork) >> > > >> >> > > >> Current master branch is full of great features in respect to 3.5. >> > > >> >> > > >> AFAIK There is no incompatibility with 3.5 so it is okay to stay >> with >> > > >> 3.6.0, although I think that there is so much stuff to legit a >> switch >> > to >> > > >> 4.0.0 (but we can reserve such bump for the time we will separate >> the >> > > java >> > > >> client and create a minimal compatibility breakage) >> > > >> >> > > >> Thoughts? >> > > >> >> > > >> Enrico >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >
