On Jul 11, 2014 6:37 AM, "Flavio Junqueira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just so that we don´t delay too much, what if we release an alpha version without 1863 and 1807, and do another one in 2-3 weeks time? >
+1 -rgs > -Flavio > > > On Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:12 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >On 2 July 2014 21:19, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Update: we're down to 7 blockers on 5.1.0 (from 8 in the last check). > >> 1810 is waiting on feedback from Michi, and Camille is threatening to > >> commit 1863. I see some great progress in general on the patch > >> availables queue, which is great to see. > >> > >> So here's something else we might consider - should we drop jdk6 > >> support from 3.5. It's long since EOL by Oracle but I suspect some > >> folks are still using ZK with 6. We gotta move forward though, can't > >> support it forever. Thoughts? Note that we are currently > >> building/testing trunk against jdk6, 7 and 8. > >> https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/ > >> > > > >Extra eyes/review for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1807 > >would be appreciated (otherwise anyone using Observers with the upcoming > >alpha release will see there network usage go wild...). > > > > > >-rgs > > > > > > > > > > > >> Patrick > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > According to me, ZK-1810 should be in already, but I need a +1 there. I > >> think Michi hasn't checked in because LETest failed in the last QA run > >> there. However, that patch doesn't affect LETest, and in fact it fails in > >> trunk intermittently, so the test failure doesn't seem to be related to the > >> patch. > >> > > >> > I haven't checked ZK-1863, so I can't say anything concrete about it. > >> > > >> > -Flavio > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:53 AM, 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 > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > > > >
