> > I really want to have RATIS-2129 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-2129> backported to the 3.1 line. ... > > Since the master branch is relatively stable now, perhaps we can exclude this commit from version 3.1.3 (stability first) and then move forward with the release of version 3.2.0 as soon as 3.1.3 is released?
Wei-Chiu, Xinyu, there are three tracks: 1. Current 3.1 line 2. RATIS-2129 lock free RaftLog read 3. RATIS-1931 gRPC zero-copy It seems that (1) is stable since it is already used for some time. (2) is semi-stable since it was committed for some time and no bugs found recently. (3) is still unstable since some tests may still fail with buffer leak. T hanks JiangHua and others that the test failure rate has been improved a lot ! So, how about we continue the current 3.1.3 release without including RATIS-2129. Then, start another 3.2.0 release with RATIS-2129 (and without RATIS-1931). > RATIS-2203 / RATIS-2208 are fixed once https://github.com/apache/ratis/pull/1206 is merged. ... William, the pull request has been merged. Thanks for working on the fixes! Tsz-Wo On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 5:17 AM William Song <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Xinyu, > > Thanks for driving the release of 3.1.3. > > RATIS-2203 / RATIS-2208 are fixed once > https://github.com/apache/ratis/pull/1206 is merged. Hopefully we can > start the release soon after ;). > > Best Regards, > William > > > 2025年1月6日 12:26，Xinyu Tan <[email protected]> 写道： > > > > Hi, Wei-Chiu Chuang > > > > Since the master branch is relatively stable now, perhaps we can exclude > this commit from version 3.1.3 (stability first) and then move forward with > the release of version 3.2.0 as soon as 3.1.3 is released? > > > > What are everyone's thoughts on this? Is the current stability of the > master branch sufficient to begin work on version 3.2.0? > > > > Best > > --------------- > > Xinyu Tan > > > > On 2024/12/31 00:27:03 Wei-Chiu Chuang wrote: > >> I really want to have RATIS-2129 > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-2129> backported to the > 3.1 > >> line. > >> But when I tested in our internal dev branch I kept having all kinds of > >> errors that seemed to indicate some sort of race conditions. Master > seems > >> fine though. > >> How do folks feel about including RATIS-2129? My hunch is there is > >> a missing commit or two in the 3.1 line. > >> IoTDB community reported 25% improvement so it would be really great to > >> have it. > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 10:03 AM Tsz Wo Sze <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Xinyu, > >>> > >>> Thanks for starting the 3.1.3 release discussion! Just have checked > the > >>> recent commits. Let's include the following: > >>> > >>> RATIS-2231. Bump ratis-thirdparty to 1.0.8 (#1202) > >>> RATIS-2200. Make Ratis example log at INFO level (#1189) > >>> RATIS-2197. Clean remote stream to resolve direct memory leak > (#1179) > >>> RATIS-2185. Improve gRPC log messages debugability. (#1186) > >>> RATIS-2194. FileLock didn't unlock properly (#1183) > >>> RATIS-2189. Use ByteBufAllocator#ioBuffer in NettyDataStreamUtils > >>> (#1178) > >>> RATIS-2186. Raft log should not purge index lower than the log start > >>> index (#1175) > >>> RATIS-2177. Purge should delete segmentLog from small to large > >>> according to logIndex (#1174) > >>> > >>> Tsz-Wo > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 4:40 AM Xinyu Tan <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> Recently, we have fixed a series of stability issues related to Ratis > >>>> member changes, and we are also addressing issues similar to > >>>> Ratis-2203/2208. Additionally, we have released Ratis-ThirdParty > 1.0.8 to > >>>> fix CVE issues. > >>>> > >>>> The IoTDB community plans to vote on version 2.0.1 on January 17th, > and > >>> at > >>>> that time, we will no longer be able to rely on snapshot versions of > >>> Ratis. > >>>> I believe we can release a minor version 3.1.3 of Ratis to include the > >>>> above commits. If there are no objections, I am happy to take on the > role > >>>> of Release Manager and initiate the vote in early January. Of course, > we > >>>> also expect Ratis-2203/2208 to be resolved by then. > >>>> > >>>> Does anyone have any suggestions? Also, are there any additional > commits > >>>> you would recommend? > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> ------------------ > >>>> Xinyu Tan > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
