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: 0x00002b0a75afd000 *** https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2346/console Patrick On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 June 2014 22:26, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> 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, recent change? >> >> [exec] Zookeeper_operations::testConcurrentOperations1 : >> assertion : elapsed 24 >> [exec] /bin/bash: line 5: 11205 Segmentation fault >> >> ZKROOT=/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/ZooKeeper-trunk/trunk/src/c/../.. >> CLASSPATH=$CLASSPATH:$CLOVER_HOME/lib/clover.jar ${dir}$tst >> [exec] Zookeeper_multi::testCreateFAIL: zktest-mt >> > > I wonder if related to: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1933 > > > -rgs > > > >> >> Patrick >> >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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 >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +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 <[email protected]> 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 wait for perfection we'll never get >> >>> anything out the door. 3.5 has tons of great new features, lots of >> >>> hard work, let's get it out in a release so that folks can use it, >> >>> test it, and give feedback. >> >>> >> >>> Jenkins jobs have been pretty stable except for the known flakey test >> >>> ZOOKEEPER-1870 which Flavio committed today to trunk. Note that >> >>> jenkins has also been verifying the code on jdk7 and jdk8. >> >>> >> >>> Here's my thinking again on how we should plan our releases: >> >>> >> >>> I don't think we'll be able to do a 3.5.x-stable for some time. What I >> >>> think we should do instead is similar to what we did for 3.4. (this is >> >>> also similar to what Hadoop did during their Hadoop 2 release cycle) >> >>> Start with a series of alpha releases, something people can run and >> >>> test with, once we address all the blockers and feel comfortable with >> >>> the apis & remaining jiras we then switch to beta. Once we get some >> >>> good feedback we remove the alpha/beta moniker and look at making it >> >>> "stable'. At some later point it will become the "current/stable" >> >>> release, taking over from 3.4.x. >> >>> >> >>> e.g. >> >>> 3.5.0-alpha (8 blockers) >> >>> 3.5.1-alpha (3 blockers) >> >>> 3.5.2-alpha (0 blockers) >> >>> 3.5.3-beta (apis locked) >> >>> 3.5.4-beta >> >>> 3.5.5-beta >> >>> 3.5.6 (no longer considered alpha/beta but also not "stable" vs 3.4.x, >> >>> maybe use it for production but we still expect things to shake out) >> >>> 3.5.7 >> >>> .... >> >>> 3.5.x - ready to replace 3.4 releases for production use, stable, >> etc... >> >>> >> >>> There are 8 blockers currently, are any of these something that should >> >>> hold up 3.5.0-alpha? >> >>> >> >>> I'll hold open the discussion for a couple days. If folks find this a >> >>> reasonable plan I'll start the ball rolling to cut an RC. >> >>> >> >>> Patrick >> >> >>
