Re: Issues with release notes in 3.4.9 RC2 (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.4.9 candidate 2)

2016-08-30 Thread Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
IIUC, the summary of this discussion is that no one (yet) sees the
issues flagged
as blockers for the 3.4.9 release. No one yet has decided to vote -1. (If
anybody has concerns, I'm happy to create another release candidate.)

This [VOTE] is still open, so kindly do review the RC and vote.

Thanks,
Rakesh

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
wrote:

> OK, it would be good to update the existing list in 'HowToRelease' page so
> that it will be clear to everyone.
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'd request everyone to cast your vote on 3.4.9-RC2 and that would really
> helpful to take the thread ahead. Thank you!
>
> Rakesh
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Flavio Junqueira  wrote:
>
>> Issues that are "not a problem" are essentially no-ops. Including them is
>> not wrong per se, but I'd say it is unnecessary and adds more lines to the
>> release notes. Unless the goal of the release notes is to list the issues
>> we investigated as part of the release, I'd say that going forward we
>> should exclude issues marked as "not a problem".
>>
>> I don't see the need to -1 the RC2 based on the inclusion of ZK-1676,
>> though.
>>
>> -Flavio
>>
>>
>> > On 29 Aug 2016, at 05:22, Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > OK, I got it. Thanks a lot for the clarification.
>> >
>> > Rakesh
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
>> >
>> >> I would say it's acceptable to include 1676 in the release note. IMO we
>> >> shouldn't list things in the release notes if they weren't addressed
>> (typ
>> >> fixed) in that release. However in this case I don't see why it's a
>> very
>> >> big deal - if folks are that interested in the issue they could
>> quickly see
>> >> (by opening the jira) what the resolution was.
>> >>
>> >> Patrick
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <
>> rake...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Thanks Patrick, I just referred 3.4.6 release note and I could see
>> >> similar
>> >>> category, ZOOKEEPER-1599 marked resolution as 'Not A Problem' and
>> >> included
>> >>> in 3.4.6 release note. Should we follow the same pattern and
>> >>> include ZOOKEEPER-1676 also in 3.4.9 release note, please correct me
>> if I
>> >>> missed anything.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
>> >>> projectId=12310801=12323310
>> >>>
>> >>> Rakesh
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Hunt 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <
>> >>> rake...@apache.org>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> > Thanks Flavio for taking the discussion ahead. Thanks Michael for
>>  pointing
>> > out these cases.
>> >
>>  Looking at release notes:
>>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?p
>> > rojectId=12310801=12334700
>> 
>> 
>>   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396 > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
>>   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
>> 
>>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9.
>> >> Maybe
>> > there
>>  was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we
>> >>> keep
>> > this
>>  in relesae note or remove it?
>> >
>> >> It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
>> > including or excluding it.
>> >
>> > I would wait to see others response.
>> >
>> >
>> 
>>   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676 > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
>>   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
>> 
>>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9
>> >>> either,
>>  as
>>  this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
>> > excluded
>>  in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information,
>>  though
>> > I
>>  am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.
>> >
>> >> Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.
>> >
>> > I could see 'HowToRelease' page has specifically mentioned the
>> >> excluded
>> > categories as "Won' fix" and "Invalid" jira resolution.
>> >> ZOOKEEPER-1676
>> > comes under 'Not A Problem' category. Perhaps we could revisit the
>> > classifications and consider more cases like, Not a problem, Cannot
>> > Reproduce, Not A Bug etc, if everyone thinks so. But I'm not sure
>> how
>> > updating the excluded category might reflect in our previously
>> >> released
>> > versions.
>> >
>> >
>>  Typically I removed the "fixed version" if it's not actually fixed.
>> >> i.e.
>>  "wont fix" means I would clear the "fix version" as part of resolving
>> >> the
>>  issue.
>> 
>>  Patrick
>> 
>> 
>> > Reference:-
>>

Re: Issues with release notes in 3.4.9 RC2 (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.4.9 candidate 2)

2016-08-29 Thread Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
OK, it would be good to update the existing list in 'HowToRelease' page so
that it will be clear to everyone.


Hi All,

I'd request everyone to cast your vote on 3.4.9-RC2 and that would really
helpful to take the thread ahead. Thank you!

Rakesh

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Flavio Junqueira  wrote:

> Issues that are "not a problem" are essentially no-ops. Including them is
> not wrong per se, but I'd say it is unnecessary and adds more lines to the
> release notes. Unless the goal of the release notes is to list the issues
> we investigated as part of the release, I'd say that going forward we
> should exclude issues marked as "not a problem".
>
> I don't see the need to -1 the RC2 based on the inclusion of ZK-1676,
> though.
>
> -Flavio
>
>
> > On 29 Aug 2016, at 05:22, Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
> wrote:
> >
> > OK, I got it. Thanks a lot for the clarification.
> >
> > Rakesh
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> >
> >> I would say it's acceptable to include 1676 in the release note. IMO we
> >> shouldn't list things in the release notes if they weren't addressed
> (typ
> >> fixed) in that release. However in this case I don't see why it's a very
> >> big deal - if folks are that interested in the issue they could quickly
> see
> >> (by opening the jira) what the resolution was.
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <
> rake...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Patrick, I just referred 3.4.6 release note and I could see
> >> similar
> >>> category, ZOOKEEPER-1599 marked resolution as 'Not A Problem' and
> >> included
> >>> in 3.4.6 release note. Should we follow the same pattern and
> >>> include ZOOKEEPER-1676 also in 3.4.9 release note, please correct me
> if I
> >>> missed anything.
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> >>> projectId=12310801=12323310
> >>>
> >>> Rakesh
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Hunt 
> wrote:
> >>>
>  On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <
> >>> rake...@apache.org>
>  wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Flavio for taking the discussion ahead. Thanks Michael for
>  pointing
> > out these cases.
> >
>  Looking at release notes:
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?p
> > rojectId=12310801=12334700
> 
> 
>   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396  > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
>   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
> 
>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9.
> >> Maybe
> > there
>  was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we
> >>> keep
> > this
>  in relesae note or remove it?
> >
> >> It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
> > including or excluding it.
> >
> > I would wait to see others response.
> >
> >
> 
>   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676  > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
>   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
> 
>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9
> >>> either,
>  as
>  this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
> > excluded
>  in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information,
>  though
> > I
>  am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.
> >
> >> Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.
> >
> > I could see 'HowToRelease' page has specifically mentioned the
> >> excluded
> > categories as "Won' fix" and "Invalid" jira resolution.
> >> ZOOKEEPER-1676
> > comes under 'Not A Problem' category. Perhaps we could revisit the
> > classifications and consider more cases like, Not a problem, Cannot
> > Reproduce, Not A Bug etc, if everyone thinks so. But I'm not sure how
> > updating the excluded category might reflect in our previously
> >> released
> > versions.
> >
> >
>  Typically I removed the "fixed version" if it's not actually fixed.
> >> i.e.
>  "wont fix" means I would clear the "fix version" as part of resolving
> >> the
>  issue.
> 
>  Patrick
> 
> 
> > Reference:-
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToRelease
> >>> page,
> > "Note that you need to exclude the won't fix or invalid tickets."
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rakesh
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Flavio Junqueira 
>  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> On 27 Aug 2016, at 00:16, Michael Han  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Looking at release notes:
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> >> ctId=12310801=12334700
>

Re: Issues with release notes in 3.4.9 RC2 (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.4.9 candidate 2)

2016-08-29 Thread Flavio Junqueira 
Issues that are "not a problem" are essentially no-ops. Including them is not 
wrong per se, but I'd say it is unnecessary and adds more lines to the release 
notes. Unless the goal of the release notes is to list the issues we 
investigated as part of the release, I'd say that going forward we should 
exclude issues marked as "not a problem". 

I don't see the need to -1 the RC2 based on the inclusion of ZK-1676, though.

-Flavio


> On 29 Aug 2016, at 05:22, Rakesh Radhakrishnan  wrote:
> 
> OK, I got it. Thanks a lot for the clarification.
> 
> Rakesh
> 
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> 
>> I would say it's acceptable to include 1676 in the release note. IMO we
>> shouldn't list things in the release notes if they weren't addressed (typ
>> fixed) in that release. However in this case I don't see why it's a very
>> big deal - if folks are that interested in the issue they could quickly see
>> (by opening the jira) what the resolution was.
>> 
>> Patrick
>> 
>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Patrick, I just referred 3.4.6 release note and I could see
>> similar
>>> category, ZOOKEEPER-1599 marked resolution as 'Not A Problem' and
>> included
>>> in 3.4.6 release note. Should we follow the same pattern and
>>> include ZOOKEEPER-1676 also in 3.4.9 release note, please correct me if I
>>> missed anything.
>>> 
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
>>> projectId=12310801=12323310
>>> 
>>> Rakesh
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
>>> 
 On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <
>>> rake...@apache.org>
 wrote:
 
> Thanks Flavio for taking the discussion ahead. Thanks Michael for
 pointing
> out these cases.
> 
 Looking at release notes:
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?p
> rojectId=12310801=12334700
 
 
  - [ZOOKEEPER-2396  a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
  - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
 
 There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9.
>> Maybe
> there
 was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we
>>> keep
> this
 in relesae note or remove it?
> 
>> It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
> including or excluding it.
> 
> I would wait to see others response.
> 
> 
 
  - [ZOOKEEPER-1676  a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
  - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
 
 There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9
>>> either,
 as
 this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
> excluded
 in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information,
 though
> I
 am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.
> 
>> Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.
> 
> I could see 'HowToRelease' page has specifically mentioned the
>> excluded
> categories as "Won' fix" and "Invalid" jira resolution.
>> ZOOKEEPER-1676
> comes under 'Not A Problem' category. Perhaps we could revisit the
> classifications and consider more cases like, Not a problem, Cannot
> Reproduce, Not A Bug etc, if everyone thinks so. But I'm not sure how
> updating the excluded category might reflect in our previously
>> released
> versions.
> 
> 
 Typically I removed the "fixed version" if it's not actually fixed.
>> i.e.
 "wont fix" means I would clear the "fix version" as part of resolving
>> the
 issue.
 
 Patrick
 
 
> Reference:-
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToRelease
>>> page,
> "Note that you need to exclude the won't fix or invalid tickets."
> 
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
> 
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Flavio Junqueira 
 wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On 27 Aug 2016, at 00:16, Michael Han  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Looking at release notes:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
>> ctId=12310801=12334700
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  - [ZOOKEEPER-2396 > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
>>>  - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
>>> 
>>> There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9.
>> Maybe
> there
>>> was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we
>>> keep
> this
>>> in relesae note or remove it?
>> 
>> It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
>> including or excluding it.
>> 
>>> 
>>>  - [ZOOKEEPER-1676

Re: Issues with release notes in 3.4.9 RC2 (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.4.9 candidate 2)

2016-08-28 Thread Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
OK, I got it. Thanks a lot for the clarification.

Rakesh

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:

> I would say it's acceptable to include 1676 in the release note. IMO we
> shouldn't list things in the release notes if they weren't addressed (typ
> fixed) in that release. However in this case I don't see why it's a very
> big deal - if folks are that interested in the issue they could quickly see
> (by opening the jira) what the resolution was.
>
> Patrick
>
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Patrick, I just referred 3.4.6 release note and I could see
> similar
> > category, ZOOKEEPER-1599 marked resolution as 'Not A Problem' and
> included
> > in 3.4.6 release note. Should we follow the same pattern and
> > include ZOOKEEPER-1676 also in 3.4.9 release note, please correct me if I
> > missed anything.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> > projectId=12310801=12323310
> >
> > Rakesh
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <
> > rake...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Flavio for taking the discussion ahead. Thanks Michael for
> > > pointing
> > > > out these cases.
> > > >
> > > > >>> Looking at release notes:
> > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?p
> > > > rojectId=12310801=12334700
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396  > > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
> > > > >>>   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9.
> Maybe
> > > > there
> > > > >>> was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we
> > keep
> > > > this
> > > > >>> in relesae note or remove it?
> > > >
> > > > >It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
> > > > including or excluding it.
> > > >
> > > > I would wait to see others response.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676  > > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
> > > > >>>   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9
> > either,
> > > as
> > > > >>> this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
> > > > excluded
> > > > >>> in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information,
> > > though
> > > > I
> > > > >>> am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.
> > > >
> > > > >Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.
> > > >
> > > > I could see 'HowToRelease' page has specifically mentioned the
> excluded
> > > > categories as "Won' fix" and "Invalid" jira resolution.
> ZOOKEEPER-1676
> > > > comes under 'Not A Problem' category. Perhaps we could revisit the
> > > > classifications and consider more cases like, Not a problem, Cannot
> > > > Reproduce, Not A Bug etc, if everyone thinks so. But I'm not sure how
> > > > updating the excluded category might reflect in our previously
> released
> > > > versions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Typically I removed the "fixed version" if it's not actually fixed.
> i.e.
> > > "wont fix" means I would clear the "fix version" as part of resolving
> the
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > > > Reference:-
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToRelease
> > page,
> > > > "Note that you need to exclude the won't fix or invalid tickets."
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Rakesh
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Flavio Junqueira 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 27 Aug 2016, at 00:16, Michael Han  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking at release notes:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> > > > > ctId=12310801=12334700
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396  > > > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
> > > > > >   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9.
> Maybe
> > > > there
> > > > > > was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we
> > keep
> > > > this
> > > > > > in relesae note or remove it?
> > > > >
> > > > > It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
> > > > > including or excluding it.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676  > > > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
> > > > > >   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9
> > either,
> > > as
> > > > > > this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
> > > > > excluded
> > > > >

Re: Issues with release notes in 3.4.9 RC2 (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.4.9 candidate 2)

2016-08-28 Thread Patrick Hunt 
I would say it's acceptable to include 1676 in the release note. IMO we
shouldn't list things in the release notes if they weren't addressed (typ
fixed) in that release. However in this case I don't see why it's a very
big deal - if folks are that interested in the issue they could quickly see
(by opening the jira) what the resolution was.

Patrick

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
wrote:

> Thanks Patrick, I just referred 3.4.6 release note and I could see similar
> category, ZOOKEEPER-1599 marked resolution as 'Not A Problem' and included
> in 3.4.6 release note. Should we follow the same pattern and
> include ZOOKEEPER-1676 also in 3.4.9 release note, please correct me if I
> missed anything.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> projectId=12310801=12323310
>
> Rakesh
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <
> rake...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Flavio for taking the discussion ahead. Thanks Michael for
> > pointing
> > > out these cases.
> > >
> > > >>> Looking at release notes:
> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?p
> > > rojectId=12310801=12334700
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396  > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
> > > >>>   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9. Maybe
> > > there
> > > >>> was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we
> keep
> > > this
> > > >>> in relesae note or remove it?
> > >
> > > >It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
> > > including or excluding it.
> > >
> > > I would wait to see others response.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676  > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
> > > >>>   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9
> either,
> > as
> > > >>> this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
> > > excluded
> > > >>> in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information,
> > though
> > > I
> > > >>> am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.
> > >
> > > >Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.
> > >
> > > I could see 'HowToRelease' page has specifically mentioned the excluded
> > > categories as "Won' fix" and "Invalid" jira resolution. ZOOKEEPER-1676
> > > comes under 'Not A Problem' category. Perhaps we could revisit the
> > > classifications and consider more cases like, Not a problem, Cannot
> > > Reproduce, Not A Bug etc, if everyone thinks so. But I'm not sure how
> > > updating the excluded category might reflect in our previously released
> > > versions.
> > >
> > >
> > Typically I removed the "fixed version" if it's not actually fixed. i.e.
> > "wont fix" means I would clear the "fix version" as part of resolving the
> > issue.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > > Reference:-
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToRelease
> page,
> > > "Note that you need to exclude the won't fix or invalid tickets."
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rakesh
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Flavio Junqueira 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 27 Aug 2016, at 00:16, Michael Han  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at release notes:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> > > > ctId=12310801=12334700
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396  > > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
> > > > >   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
> > > > >
> > > > >  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9. Maybe
> > > there
> > > > > was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we
> keep
> > > this
> > > > > in relesae note or remove it?
> > > >
> > > > It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
> > > > including or excluding it.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676  > > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
> > > > >   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
> > > > >
> > > > >  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9
> either,
> > as
> > > > > this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
> > > > excluded
> > > > > in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information,
> > > though I
> > > > > am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.
> > > >
> > > > -Flavio
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Abraham Fine  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> +1

Re: Issues with release notes in 3.4.9 RC2 (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.4.9 candidate 2)

2016-08-28 Thread Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
Thanks Patrick, I just referred 3.4.6 release note and I could see similar
category, ZOOKEEPER-1599 marked resolution as 'Not A Problem' and included
in 3.4.6 release note. Should we follow the same pattern and
include ZOOKEEPER-1676 also in 3.4.9 release note, please correct me if I
missed anything.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=12310801=12323310

Rakesh

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Flavio for taking the discussion ahead. Thanks Michael for
> pointing
> > out these cases.
> >
> > >>> Looking at release notes:
> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?p
> > rojectId=12310801=12334700
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396  > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
> > >>>   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
> > >>>
> > >>>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9. Maybe
> > there
> > >>> was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we keep
> > this
> > >>> in relesae note or remove it?
> >
> > >It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
> > including or excluding it.
> >
> > I would wait to see others response.
> >
> >
> > >>>
> > >>>   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676  > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
> > >>>   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
> > >>>
> > >>>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9 either,
> as
> > >>> this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
> > excluded
> > >>> in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information,
> though
> > I
> > >>> am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.
> >
> > >Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.
> >
> > I could see 'HowToRelease' page has specifically mentioned the excluded
> > categories as "Won' fix" and "Invalid" jira resolution. ZOOKEEPER-1676
> > comes under 'Not A Problem' category. Perhaps we could revisit the
> > classifications and consider more cases like, Not a problem, Cannot
> > Reproduce, Not A Bug etc, if everyone thinks so. But I'm not sure how
> > updating the excluded category might reflect in our previously released
> > versions.
> >
> >
> Typically I removed the "fixed version" if it's not actually fixed. i.e.
> "wont fix" means I would clear the "fix version" as part of resolving the
> issue.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> > Reference:-
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToRelease page,
> > "Note that you need to exclude the won't fix or invalid tickets."
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rakesh
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Flavio Junqueira 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > On 27 Aug 2016, at 00:16, Michael Han  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Looking at release notes:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> > > ctId=12310801=12334700
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396  > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
> > > >   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
> > > >
> > > >  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9. Maybe
> > there
> > > > was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we keep
> > this
> > > > in relesae note or remove it?
> > >
> > > It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
> > > including or excluding it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676  > > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
> > > >   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
> > > >
> > > >  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9 either,
> as
> > > > this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
> > > excluded
> > > > in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information,
> > though I
> > > > am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.
> > >
> > > Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.
> > >
> > > -Flavio
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Abraham Fine 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +1 (non-binding)
> > > >>
> > > >> shasum and md5sum are valid. PGP signature is valid.
> > > >>
> > > >> Java unit tests pass and was able to successfully test against a 3
> > > server
> > > >> ensemble.
> > > >>
> > > >> Abe
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Aug 23, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Patrick Hunt 
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1 xsum/sig are valid. RAT ran clean. I was able to compile the
> code
> > > and
> > > >>> successfully put a few ensemble sizes through their paces.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> fwiw I also did a "diff" btw 3.4.8 release artifact and this rc.
> > There
> > > >> were
> > > >>> a number of changed files, obviously. However I did not notice any
> > > >> missing
> > > >>> files, as

Re: Issues with release notes in 3.4.9 RC2 (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.4.9 candidate 2)

2016-08-28 Thread Patrick Hunt 
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan 
wrote:

> Thanks Flavio for taking the discussion ahead. Thanks Michael for pointing
> out these cases.
>
> >>> Looking at release notes:
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?p
> rojectId=12310801=12334700
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396  a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
> >>>   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
> >>>
> >>>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9. Maybe
> there
> >>> was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we keep
> this
> >>> in relesae note or remove it?
>
> >It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
> including or excluding it.
>
> I would wait to see others response.
>
>
> >>>
> >>>   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676  a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
> >>>   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
> >>>
> >>>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9 either, as
> >>> this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
> excluded
> >>> in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information, though
> I
> >>> am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.
>
> >Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.
>
> I could see 'HowToRelease' page has specifically mentioned the excluded
> categories as "Won' fix" and "Invalid" jira resolution. ZOOKEEPER-1676
> comes under 'Not A Problem' category. Perhaps we could revisit the
> classifications and consider more cases like, Not a problem, Cannot
> Reproduce, Not A Bug etc, if everyone thinks so. But I'm not sure how
> updating the excluded category might reflect in our previously released
> versions.
>
>
Typically I removed the "fixed version" if it's not actually fixed. i.e.
"wont fix" means I would clear the "fix version" as part of resolving the
issue.

Patrick


> Reference:-
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZOOKEEPER/HowToRelease page,
> "Note that you need to exclude the won't fix or invalid tickets."
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Flavio Junqueira  wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 27 Aug 2016, at 00:16, Michael Han  wrote:
> > >
> > > Looking at release notes:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje
> > ctId=12310801=12334700
> > >
> > >
> > >   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396  > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2396>]
> > >   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
> > >
> > >  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9. Maybe
> there
> > > was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we keep
> this
> > > in relesae note or remove it?
> >
> > It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either,
> > including or excluding it.
> >
> > >
> > >   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676  > a/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1676>]
> > >   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
> > >
> > >  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9 either, as
> > > this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be
> > excluded
> > > in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information,
> though I
> > > am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.
> >
> > Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.
> >
> > -Flavio
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Abraham Fine 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 (non-binding)
> > >>
> > >> shasum and md5sum are valid. PGP signature is valid.
> > >>
> > >> Java unit tests pass and was able to successfully test against a 3
> > server
> > >> ensemble.
> > >>
> > >> Abe
> > >>
> > >>> On Aug 23, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> +1 xsum/sig are valid. RAT ran clean. I was able to compile the code
> > and
> > >>> successfully put a few ensemble sizes through their paces.
> > >>>
> > >>> fwiw I also did a "diff" btw 3.4.8 release artifact and this rc.
> There
> > >> were
> > >>> a number of changed files, obviously. However I did not notice any
> > >> missing
> > >>> files, as we've seen with the previous rcs in this release candidate
> > >> line.
> > >>> afaict this artifact has all the right contents - i.e. similar to
> > >> previous
> > >>> releases.
> > >>>
> > >>> Patrick
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <
> > >> rake...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  This is the third release candidate for 3.4.9. This candidate
> removes
> > >> the
> >  extra *.asc files found in the
> >  second candidate.
> > 
> >  This is a bugfix release candidate for 3.4.9. It fixes 21 issues,
> > >> including
> >  issues that affect ACL cache
> >  in DataTree never removes entries, prevent multiple init of login
> > >> object in
> >  each

Issues with release notes in 3.4.9 RC2 (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.4.9 candidate 2)

2016-08-28 Thread Flavio Junqueira 

> On 27 Aug 2016, at 00:16, Michael Han  wrote:
> 
> Looking at release notes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310801=12334700
> 
> 
>   - [ZOOKEEPER-2396 ]
>   - Login object in ZooKeeperSaslClient is static
> 
>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9. Maybe there
> was a mistake on marking the target version as 3.4.9? Should we keep this
> in relesae note or remove it?

It is resolved through a different issue, ZK-2139. I can go either, including 
or excluding it.

> 
>   - [ZOOKEEPER-1676 ]
>   - C client zookeeper_interest returning ZOK on Connection Loss
> 
>  There is no bits related to this JIRA went to 3.4.9 either, as
> this is closed as 'not a bug'. I'd expect such not a bug issue be excluded
> in release notes, as it does not provide any useful information, though I
> am not sure what's the standard practice in previous releases.

Agreed, better not to include if we classified as not a problem.

-Flavio

> 
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Abraham Fine  wrote:
> 
>> +1 (non-binding)
>> 
>> shasum and md5sum are valid. PGP signature is valid.
>> 
>> Java unit tests pass and was able to successfully test against a 3 server
>> ensemble.
>> 
>> Abe
>> 
>>> On Aug 23, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 xsum/sig are valid. RAT ran clean. I was able to compile the code and
>>> successfully put a few ensemble sizes through their paces.
>>> 
>>> fwiw I also did a "diff" btw 3.4.8 release artifact and this rc. There
>> were
>>> a number of changed files, obviously. However I did not notice any
>> missing
>>> files, as we've seen with the previous rcs in this release candidate
>> line.
>>> afaict this artifact has all the right contents - i.e. similar to
>> previous
>>> releases.
>>> 
>>> Patrick
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan <
>> rake...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 This is the third release candidate for 3.4.9. This candidate removes
>> the
 extra *.asc files found in the
 second candidate.
 
 This is a bugfix release candidate for 3.4.9. It fixes 21 issues,
>> including
 issues that affect ACL cache
 in DataTree never removes entries, prevent multiple init of login
>> object in
 each ZKSaslClient instance,
 ZK service becomes unavailable when leader fails to write transaction
>> log,
 upgrade netty version due
 to security vulnerability (CVE-2014-3488) and others.
 
 The full release notes are available at:
 
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
 projectId=12310801=12334700
 
 *** Please download, test and vote by August 30th 2016, 23:59 UTC+0. ***
 
 Source files:
 http://people.apache.org/~rakeshr/zookeeper-3.4.9-candidate-2
 
 Maven staging repo:
 https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/org/
 apache/zookeeper/zookeeper/3.4.9
 
 The tag to be voted upon:
 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/zookeeper/tags/release-3.4.9-rc2
 
 ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
 http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS
 
 Should we release this candidate?
 
 Thanks,
 Rakesh
 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers
> Michael.