Hi maoling, I reformatted your original message, because it was pretty hard to read (all in a single line) after Apache converted into plain text. Would you please try to send plain text messages by default to avoid the conversion? It might help.
Answers inline. > On 2019. Jul 15., at 11:54, Justin Ling Mao <maoling199210...@sina.com> wrote: > > - 1.Since the 3.5.5 has just released in May. we still need some time to > collect the users' feedback.we cannot make sure the release time of 3.6.0? > Giving the experience from the previous release history:) I don’t feel it too fast. I’m happy to see people willing to work on releases and I believe it’s a good thing to speed up ZooKeeper releases. 4 years release cycle is not something that we should follow in the future. The discussion about the next major release is just started and doesn’t mean we have to cut tomorrow. Talk about it. Your list of upcoming patches are more than welcome, we need to discuss where to fit them. Friends@Facebook are also working hard to get patches into 3.6.0. We need to synchronize with all contributors. > - 2.please Let me share some my thoughts, and the work in progress will be > arriving into 3.6.0. Plz correct me if I got something wrong. Sure. Awesome list. > ------------------------------------------P0———————————————————————————————— > > - Support the backend store engine:LMDB. this work needs a very detailed > proposal which I will send to the community for being discussed fully. I think this should go into 4.0.0 instead if it’s only is design phase currently. This is probably true for the rest of patches too: everything which already has a PR or close to it can fit into 3.6.0, others should go to 4.0.0. > - Add a complete backup mechanism for zookeeper internal(PR-917) which I will > sharp it this week. > - A very powerful benchmark tool(PR-1011) which will be available within > these two week. > - improve the performance of read/write to have the distinct advantages > compared to etcd v3.4 which will be released soon. > - To strengthen the quota feature(PR-934,PR-936,PR-938) and implement the > throughout quota. > - To strengthen the implements of TTL node(PR-1010) > - Add some new very useful CLIs: quorumInfo, watch .etc > - Observe and strengthen the new metric system continuously. > ------------------------------------------P1———————————————————————————————— > > - strength the docs, especially about the c client, local session, > security(TLS),ZAB protocol .etc > - introduce some chaos, fuzzy tests and tools to hit and check the zk. > - Clean up the all the checkstyle violations in the zookeeper-server > module(ZOOKEEPER-3431) > ----------------------------------------- P2————————————————————————————————— > > - Debug mode feature. Look at an example of redis > - the tracing feature(PR-994). if having another time, integrating with > opentracing sounds a very good idea. > - replace jute with thrift or PB may be put into the 4.0.0 when wanting to > break the backward compatibility? And at the 4.0.0, implementing the restful > api is also a very good idea. > Thanks, Andor > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Fangmin Lv <lvfang...@gmail.com> > To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > Subject: Re: Time to think about a 3.6.0 release? > Date: 2019-06-26 07:33 > > 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 >>>>> >>> >>
