On 30 June 2014 22:41, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> 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: > 0x00002b0a75afd000 *** > > > https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2346/console >
So the last big chunk of code that landed in the C client was the removeWatches impl (which still needs an update to adhere to the last changes in the Java impl). Although, its test does pass: Zookeeper_simpleSystem::testRemoveWatchers ZooKeeper server started : elapsed 4634 : OK but the error is suspiciously near by.. I'll take a look. -rgs > > 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 > >> >> > >> >
