[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-2872) Interrupted snapshot sync causes data loss

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2872?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16129963#comment-16129963 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on ZOOKEEPER-2872: --- Github user enixon commented on the issue:

[GitHub] zookeeper issue #333: ZOOKEEPER-2872: Interrupted snapshot sync causes data ...

Github user enixon commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/333 We contemplated doing an fsync for every snapshot and decided against. You're taking a guaranteed io spike each time. That's fine when you're just syncing with the quorum but during normal

ZooKeeper_branch34_jdk7 - Build # 1620 - Failure

See https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper_branch34_jdk7/1620/ ### ## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE ### [...truncated 31.12 MB...] [junit] 2017-08-17 03:13:52,892

Re: why is reviewbot no longer -1 on patches with no tests?

Good catch. I think this is a bug in test github pull request script after a brief look. Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2876 for the fix. On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Camille Fournier wrote: > It seems like every patch without tests is being

[jira] [Created] (ZOOKEEPER-2876) Github pull request test script should output -1 when there is no tests provided in patch, unless the subject under test is a documentation JIRA

Michael Han created ZOOKEEPER-2876: -- Summary: Github pull request test script should output -1 when there is no tests provided in patch, unless the subject under test is a documentation JIRA Key: ZOOKEEPER-2876

Re: Process for reviewing submitted patches?

I typically refer to the HTC on questions like this, it currently says "We are currently discussing on the list how to adapt our workflow.". Perhaps it's just a matter or someone cleaning up the doc? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToContribute Also I noticed Dan's JIRA

Re: Process for reviewing submitted patches?

I thought we've moved to Pull Requests on Github. I've stopped posting patches. -JZ > On Aug 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > >> * Review other people's patch. If you help

Re: Process for reviewing submitted patches?

A few thoughts: 1) It is impossible for us to set SLAs for ZK patches to be reviewed. If we were a company making money on ZK and guaranteeing support for customers who paid us, perhaps we could do that (and for all I know, it's possible that customers with contracts at various companies that rely

[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-1416) Persistent Recursive Watch

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1416?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16129317#comment-16129317 ] Jordan Zimmerman commented on ZOOKEEPER-1416: - Regarding the performance numbers above...

[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-1416) Persistent Recursive Watch

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1416?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16129304#comment-16129304 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on ZOOKEEPER-1416: --- Github user Randgalt commented on the issue:

[GitHub] zookeeper issue #136: [ZOOKEEPER-1416] Persistent Recursive Watch

Github user Randgalt commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/136 Per 1. I posted some performance numbers in the issue. There's a definite hit but it's worth it in my view. We should discuss this. Per 2. What this PR is aimed at is users of Curator's

why is reviewbot no longer -1 on patches with no tests?

It seems like every patch without tests is being marked as a "documentation" patch but they clearly are not. Who should we ping to look at this? C

[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-1416) Persistent Recursive Watch

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1416?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16129299#comment-16129299 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on ZOOKEEPER-1416: --- Github user skamille commented on the issue:

[GitHub] zookeeper issue #136: [ZOOKEEPER-1416] Persistent Recursive Watch

Github user skamille commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/136 Questions I have about this from a high level design perspective: 1. As I asked on the mailing list, have we done load/performance testing or addressed what that might look like in the

[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-1416) Persistent Recursive Watch

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1416?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16129128#comment-16129128 ] Jordan Zimmerman commented on ZOOKEEPER-1416: - FYI - I did some micro benchmarking with

Re: Process for reviewing submitted patches?

We are using github pull request instead of the old patch approach since last October. So the status of JIRA is irrelevant now (in particular, Patch Available will not trigger Jenkins pre-commit workflow now.). This was discussed on dev list when we moved to github, the thread's name is "[VOTE]

Re: Process for reviewing submitted patches?

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > * Review other people's patch. If you help out, others will be more willing > to do the same for you. If someone is kind enough to review your code, you > should return the favor to for someone else. > > >

Re: Process for reviewing submitted patches?

> * Review other people's patch. If you help out, others will be more willing > to do the same for you. If someone is kind enough to review your code, you > should return the favor to for someone else. That's fair - I should personally try to do more of this. I'll make an effort here. -Jordan

Re: Process for reviewing submitted patches?

I have to agree with your sentiments. I don't want to overstate it - I'm involved with several OSS projects myself - but it does seem that ZooKeeper needs either more committers or more engagement from the existing committers. It's been very difficult to get traction on issues recently. I've

Re: Process for reviewing submitted patches?

Thanks for bringing this issue up. I think it's an important issue for the ZooKeeper community. The fundamental issue here is that we don't have enough active code reviewers and committers, which limits the throughput of the code reviews, since a patch has to be reviewed and approved by at least

Re: ZOOKEEPER-1416

Yeah - that's a fair question. To be honest, I should have done it and I will. I'll run PathParentIterator through the java benchmark tool and report back in the Issue. -Jordan > On Aug 16, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Camille Fournier wrote: > > A question on this as I begin to

Process for reviewing submitted patches?

Hi there, Does the Zookeeper project have any formal process for ensuring submitted patches get reviewed and subsequently committed? About a week ago I again submitted a patch for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2471. This is something like the third time I've submitted a

Re: ZOOKEEPER-1416

A question on this as I begin to look at it: Have you done any performance testing of the feature, or written anything about what you think the performance considerations might be? Thanks, C On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < jor...@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote: > I really

ZooKeeper_branch35_jdk8 - Build # 637 - Failure

See https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper_branch35_jdk8/637/ ### ## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE ### [...truncated 68.76 MB...] [junit] 2017-08-16 12:15:30,883

ZooKeeper-trunk-jdk8 - Build # 1165 - Still Failing

See https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk-jdk8/1165/ ### ## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE ### [...truncated 62.71 MB...] [junit] at

ZooKeeper_branch35_jdk7 - Build # 1078 - Failure

See https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper_branch35_jdk7/1078/ ### ## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE ### [...truncated 67.00 MB...] [junit] 2017-08-16 08:52:39,498