Per my previous note you can now see the c client test log output here in the "build artifacts" section: https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2372/
Patrick On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Update: we're back to 8 blockers on 3.5.0 (not clear to me which > one(s?) is new?) > > Looks like the autoconf issue I reported is hitting the upgraded > apache jenkins instances as well. I've updated the "archive" list to > include the c tests stdout redirect. So while it won't go to console > at least we can debug when there is a failure. > > Raul has been helping Bill with reviews for the jetty server support > and it looks like that should be ready soon. > > Raul also requested that someone prioritize reviewing "ZOOKEEPER-1919 > Update the C implementation of removeWatches to have it match > ZOOKEEPER-1910" so that we can include it in 3.5.0. Flavio/Michi? > > Hongchao got a patch in to cleanup the flakey c client reconfig test - > kudos on helping cleanup the build/test infra! > > > Based on previous comments it looks like we're pretty close. Do folks > feel comfortable with a 3.5.0 alpha at this point? (with a few pending > as above) > > Patrick > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >
