The 3.5.0-alpha release candidate has been posted to the dev list -
thanks everyone for the hard work!
Now the hard work starts. ;-) We need to test the RC and vote, please
do so and comment on the RC thread if you see any issues.
Note: I've also updated all the unresolved jiras, moving any
Is it possible that multiple tests are running at the same time and
interfere with each other ?
It wouldn't be the first time we have such problems with test cases
overlapping.
-Flavio
On 26 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alexander Shraer shra...@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the log Patrick sent:
1974 has been committed (kudos folks!), along with a few other patches
that were ready to go.
Hongchao, how is 1989 coming?
Patrick
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Can someone take a look at this issue? The windows c client build is
failing for a while
ZK-1989 gets pretty complicated if it needs to support the full backward
compatibility.
My plan is divide a small task out: simply keep the old config and make it
work. There could be unexpected cases when users of old config tried to use
reconfig.
Is it okay for the first alpha release?
On
Hi,
Hongchao, could you please clarify what you propose ?
If I understand correctly we have two main options - ZK-1989 that disables
reconfig and keeps the old static config and a simpler fix which is to
check for client ports on boot and shut down the server with an error if no
ports were
We've identified the issues with 1987, it would be good if folks could
take a look. Nothing looks unsolvable, but we should tweak things a
bit before 3.5.0, esp given the current upgrade experience. The new
docs will help a lot - see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1660 which we
On 24 July 2014 09:47, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
We've identified the issues with 1987, it would be good if folks could
take a look.
Great - thanks Patrick. Added some comments to the patch.
Nothing looks unsolvable, but we should tweak things a
bit before 3.5.0, esp given the
Can someone take a look at this issue? The windows c client build is
failing for a while now, would be great to fix this for 3.5.0...
ZOOKEEPER-1974 winvs2008 jenkins job failing with unresolved external symbol
Patrick
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés
-
From: Alexander Shraer [mailto:shra...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57
To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes
locally
on
two
machines.
I don't
: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes
locally
on
two
machines.
I don't currently have access to the build machine, but I
can try
to
ask
for access.
Unless anyone has a better suggestion, we
On 23 July 2014 14:48, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
FYI: Currently running some tests and I'm about to create the
branch-3.5 branch.
w00t :-)
-rgs
The units are passing and I'm able to build the release candidate
however even a basic 3 node start the cluster, stop it, then restart
is failing. We'll need to look into this before an RC can be built.
See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1987
Patrick
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at
for having an RC this week. Since this is an alpha release, I think
72
biz hours is enough for the vote.
-Flavio
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:ph...@apache.org]
Sent: 21 July 2014 18:55
To: DevZooKeeper
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I fixed
@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally on two
machines.
I don't currently have access to the build machine, but I can try to ask for
access.
Unless anyone has a better suggestion, we could remove the failing test
To: DevZooKeeper
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I fixed a number of issues. I also started a few threads with
builds@
- the ulimit issue is still outstanding. Hongchao and I worked
through a
number of findbugs issues, it's not closed yet but it's pretty
close
Shraer [mailto:shra...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57
To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally on two
machines.
I don't currently have access to the build machine, but I can try to ask
(n.config version)
-Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Shraer [mailto:shra...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57
To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally on two
)1 (n.config version)
-Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Shraer [mailto:shra...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57
To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally
)1 (n.config version)
-Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Shraer [mailto:shra...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57
To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally
-
From: Alexander Shraer [mailto:shra...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57
To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally on two
machines.
I don't currently have access to the build machine
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Shraer [mailto:shra...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57
To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally on
two
machines.
I don't currently have
Shraer [mailto:shra...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57
To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally on
two
machines.
I don't currently have access to the build machine, but I can
...@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57
To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally
on
two
machines.
I don't currently have access to the build machine, but I can try
to
ask
@zookeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes
locally
on
two
machines.
I don't currently have access to the build machine, but I can
try
to
ask
for access.
Unless anyone has a better
72
biz hours is enough for the vote.
-Flavio
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:ph...@apache.org]
Sent: 21 July 2014 18:55
To: DevZooKeeper
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I fixed
On 18 July 2014 10:32, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
You may notice some back/forth on Apache Jenkins ZK jobs - I'm trying
to fix some of the jobs that were broken during the recent host
upgrade.
How are things looking? Is it likely that we can have a 3.5.0 alpha release
week or are
I fixed a number of issues. I also started a few threads with builds@
- the ulimit issue is still outstanding. Hongchao and I worked through
a number of findbugs issues, it's not closed yet but it's pretty
close.
I don't see why we can't create an RC and start voting this week
though. Anyone
+1 for having an RC this week. Since this is an alpha release, I think 72 biz
hours is enough for the vote.
-Flavio
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:ph...@apache.org]
Sent: 21 July 2014 18:55
To: DevZooKeeper
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I fixed
2014 18:55
To: DevZooKeeper
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I fixed a number of issues. I also started a few threads with builds@
- the ulimit issue is still outstanding. Hongchao and I worked through a
number of findbugs issues, it's not closed yet but it's pretty close
is enough for the vote.
-Flavio
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:ph...@apache.org]
Sent: 21 July 2014 18:55
To: DevZooKeeper
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
I fixed a number of issues. I also started a few threads with builds@
- the ulimit issue is still
You may notice some back/forth on Apache Jenkins ZK jobs - I'm trying
to fix some of the jobs that were broken during the recent host
upgrade.
Patrick
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Michi Mutsuzaki mi...@cs.stanford.edu wrote:
I'll check in ZOOKEEPER-1683.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM,
can we also have ZOOKEEPER-1683 in ? Camille gave a +1 and all subsequent
changes were formatting as suggested by Rakesh.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
I'm concerned that the CI tests are all failing due to, for e.g.
findbugs issues. At the very least
I'll check in ZOOKEEPER-1683.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Alexander Shraer shra...@gmail.com wrote:
can we also have ZOOKEEPER-1683 in ? Camille gave a +1 and all subsequent
changes were formatting as suggested by Rakesh.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org
Hi Guys,
Sorry for not making more progress on ZK-1807. I support Raul's proposal -
how about getting the last patch
in - the code change basically reverts to what was there before ZK-107
changes, so solves the observer spamming. Besides that it adds two more
tests for reconfiguration. We can
Per my previous note you can now see the c client test log output here
in the build artifacts section:
https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2372/
Patrick
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Update: we're back to 8 blockers on
My take:
- ZK-1863 is pending review. It is a blocker and it can go in. See the jira for
comments.
- We can try to have ZK-1807 in for the first alpha.
- I'd rather not have the first alpha depending on ZK-1919 and ZK-1910, we can
leave it for the second alpha.
If you agree with this, then we
Update: we're back to 8 blockers on 3.5.0 (not clear to me which
one(s?) is new?)
Looks like the autoconf issue I reported is hitting the upgraded
apache jenkins instances as well. I've updated the archive list to
include the c tests stdout redirect. So while it won't go to console
at least we
On 14 July 2014 19:36, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Update: we're back to 8 blockers on 3.5.0 (not clear to me which
one(s?) is new?)
Looks like the autoconf issue I reported is hitting the upgraded
apache jenkins instances as well. I've updated the archive list to
include the c
Just so that we don´t delay too much, what if we release an alpha version
without 1863 and 1807, and do another one in 2-3 weeks time?
-Flavio
On Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:12 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés
r...@itevenworks.net wrote:
On 2 July 2014 21:19, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
I think that would be fine. It would also allow other people to more
easily try out the release and provide additional feedback.
Patrick
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
Just so that we don´t delay too much, what if we release an alpha
Update: we're down to 7 blockers on 5.1.0 (from 8 in the last check).
1810 is waiting on feedback from Michi, and Camille is threatening to
commit 1863. I see some great progress in general on the patch
availables queue, which is great to see.
So here's something else we might consider - should
I just canceled the patch for 1810 because it doesn't apply anymore.
It's good to go once the patch is rebased.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Update: we're down to 7 blockers on 5.1.0 (from 8 in the last check).
1810 is waiting on feedback from Michi, and
On 2 July 2014 21:19, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Update: we're down to 7 blockers on 5.1.0 (from 8 in the last check).
1810 is waiting on feedback from Michi, and Camille is threatening to
commit 1863. I see some great progress in general on the patch
availables queue, which is
On 30 June 2014 22:41, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
I'm seeing quite a few segfault type failures in the c client on
jenkins. That used to be pretty uncommon. Not sure when it started.
Here's another example
*** glibc detected *** ./zktest-mt: free(): invalid pointer:
fyi I see it as far back as may 28 (and could have been failing before
but we don't have history much before that):
https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2316/console
definitely some changes in there around may 20/21, but no smoking gun...
- 16
ZOOKEEPER-1938 June - 25
-Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:ph...@apache.org]
Sent: 01 July 2014 12:00
To: DevZooKeeper
Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning
fyi I see it as far back as may 28 (and could have been failing before but we
don't have history
According to me, ZK-1810 should be in already, but I need a +1 there. I think
Michi hasn't checked in because LETest failed in the last QA run there.
However, that patch doesn't affect LETest, and in fact it fails in trunk
intermittently, so the test failure doesn't seem to be related to the
Hi Flavio, do you think those jiras can get reviewed/finalized before
the end of the week? I'd like to try cutting an RC soonish...
Patrick
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
+1 for the plan of releasing alpha versions.
I'd like to have
Also, does anyone have an idea where we stand with the c client and
windows support? I see the build job is passing on trunk. Are folks
able to successfully use that client?
I see the c client on linux failing in some new ways, recent change?
[exec]
On 30 June 2014 22:26, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Also, does anyone have an idea where we stand with the c client and
windows support? I see the build job is passing on trunk. Are folks
able to successfully use that client?
I see the c client on linux failing in some new ways,
I'm seeing quite a few segfault type failures in the c client on
jenkins. That used to be pretty uncommon. Not sure when it started.
Here's another example
*** glibc detected *** ./zktest-mt: free(): invalid pointer:
0x2b0a75afd000 ***
+1 for the plan of releasing alpha versions.
I'd like to have ZK-1818 (ZK-1810) and ZK-1863 in. They are both patch
available. ZK-1870 is in trunk, but it is still open because we need a 3.4
patch.
-Flavio
On 26 Jun 2014, at 01:07, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Hey folks, we've been
On 25 June 2014 17:07, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Hey folks, we've been talking about it for a while, a few people have
mentioned on the list as well as contacted me personally that they
would like to see some progress on the first 3.5 release. Every
release is a compromise, if we
53 matches
Mail list logo
