I'm concerned that the CI tests are all failing due to, for e.g. findbugs issues. At the very least our build/test/ci should be pretty clean - some flakeys is ok (the recent startServer fix and some other flakeys that have been addressed go a long way on that issue) but I think the findbugs problem should be cleaned up before we cut a release. I started a separate thread to discuss the findbugs issue.
Otw we seem to be in ok shape - 1863 is in. Anyone have a chance to give feedback to Raul on 1919? Patrick On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > My take: > > - ZK-1863 is pending review. It is a blocker and it can go in. See the jira > for comments. > - We can try to have ZK-1807 in for the first alpha. > - I'd rather not have the first alpha depending on ZK-1919 and ZK-1910, we > can leave it for the second alpha. > > If you agree with this, then we should be able to cut a candidate by the end > of this week. > > -Flavio > > On 15 Jul 2014, at 17:26, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >
