Hi Rakesh, Thanks for looking at this. In general even if we find the bug since we should test it before committing a fix, it seems better to remove the test for now and debug this on a build machine. I'm trying to get access to it.
Looking at this log: https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2380/testReport/org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum/ReconfigRecoveryTest/testCurrentObserverIsParticipantInNewConfig/ Something weird is going on. Sever 3 hasn't started yet, but version 200000000 is already being sent around as committed! 2014-07-21 10:44:50,901 [myid:2] - INFO [WorkerReceiver[myid=2]:FastLeaderElection$Messenger$WorkerReceiver@293] - 2 Received version: 200000000 my version: 0 and also in leader election messages. Also weird is that the version of 2 is 0 as if it is a joiner, whereas we explicitly started it with 100000000. Then it makes sense that the new config can't be committed since its version is not high enough... I wonder if its possible that not all servers from the previous test are dead and they are interfering... On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Rakesh R <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Yeah it is consistently passing in my machine also. > > > I have quickly gone through the > testCurrentObserverIsParticipantInNewConfig failure logs in > PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build. It looks like 200000000 (n.config version) has > not taken and still leader election is seeing 100000000 (n.config version). > Unfortunately I didn't find the reason for not considering the updated > config version. > > > Reference: > https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/2213/testReport/junit/org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum/ReconfigRecoveryTest/testCurrentObserverIsParticipantInNewConfig > > 2014-07-22 06:38:00,330 [myid:1] - INFO > [QuorumPeer[myid=1]/127.0.0.1:11298:FastLeaderElection@922] - > Notification time out: 51200 > 2014-07-22 06:38:00,330 [myid:1] - INFO > [WorkerReceiver[myid=1]:FastLeaderElection@682] - Notification: 2 > (message format version), 1 (n.leader), 0x100000005 (n.zxid), 0x1 > (n.round), LOOKING (n.state), 1 (n.sid), 0x1 (n.peerEPoch), LOOKING (my > state)100000000 (n.config version) > 2014-07-22 06:38:00,331 [myid:2] - INFO > [WorkerReceiver[myid=2]:FastLeaderElection@682] - Notification: 2 > (message format version), 1 (n.leader), 0x100000005 (n.zxid), 0x1 > (n.round), LOOKING (n.state), 2 (n.sid), 0x1 (n.peerEPoch), LOOKING (my > state)100000000 (n.config version) > 2014-07-22 06:38:00,330 [myid:2] - INFO > [QuorumPeer[myid=2]/127.0.0.1:11301:FastLeaderElection@922] - > Notification time out: 51200 > 2014-07-22 06:38:00,331 [myid:0] - INFO > [WorkerReceiver[myid=0]:FastLeaderElection@682] - Notification: 2 > (message format version), 1 (n.leader), 0x100000005 (n.zxid), 0x1 > (n.round), LOOKING (n.state), 1 (n.sid), 0x1 (n.peerEPoch), LOOKING (my > state)100000000 (n.config version) > 2014-07-22 06:38:00,331 [myid:2] - INFO > [WorkerReceiver[myid=2]:FastLeaderElection@682] - Notification: 2 > (message format version), 1 (n.leader), 0x100000005 (n.zxid), 0x1 > (n.round), LOOKING (n.state), 1 (n.sid), 0x1 (n.peerEPoch), LOOKING (my > state)100000000 (n.config version) > > > 2014-07-22 06:38:00,332 [myid:0] - INFO > [WorkerReceiver[myid=0]:FastLeaderElection@682] - Notification: 2 > (message format version), 1 (n.leader), 0x100000005 (n.zxid), 0x1 > (n.round), LOOKING (n.state), 2 (n.sid), 0x1 (n.peerEPoch), LOOKING (my > state)100000000 (n.config version) > 2014-07-22 06:38:00,332 [myid:1] - INFO > [WorkerReceiver[myid=1]:FastLeaderElection@682] - Notification: 2 > (message format version), 1 (n.leader), 0x100000005 (n.zxid), 0x1 > (n.round), LOOKING (n.state), 2 (n.sid), 0x1 (n.peerEPoch), LOOKING (my > state)100000000 (n.config version) > > > -Rakesh > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Shraer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning > > I tried to look into it, but the test consistently passes locally on two > machines. > I don't currently have access to the build machine, but I can try to ask > for access. > Unless anyone has a better suggestion, we could remove the failing test in > the meanwhile and open a JIRA to add it back... > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm seeing alot of test failures in > > testCurrentObserverIsParticipantInNewConfig could someone take a look? > > Seems related to ZOOKEEPER-1807 recent commit. > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1807?focusedCommentId= > > 14069024&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment- > > tabpanel#comment-14069024 > > > > Patrick > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Rakesh Radhakrishnan > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > lgtm +1 > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:37 PM, FPJ > > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 for having an RC this week. Since this is an alpha release, I > > >> +think > > 72 > > >> biz hours is enough for the vote. > > >> > > >> -Flavio > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:[email protected]] > > >> > Sent: 21 July 2014 18:55 > > >> > To: DevZooKeeper > > >> > Subject: Re: ZooKeeper 3.5.0-alpha planning > > >> > > > >> > I fixed a number of issues. I also started a few threads with > > >> > builds@ > > >> > - the ulimit issue is still outstanding. Hongchao and I worked > > through a > > >> > number of findbugs issues, it's not closed yet but it's pretty > close. > > >> > > > >> > I don't see why we can't create an RC and start voting this week > > though. > > >> > Anyone disagree? > > >> > > > >> > How long should we let the vote run, the std 72 biz hours or > > >> > should we > > >> plan > > >> > for more to allow folks more time to test? > > >> > > > >> > Patrick > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > On 18 July 2014 10:32, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> You may notice some back/forth on Apache Jenkins ZK jobs - I'm > > trying > > >> > >> to fix some of the jobs that were broken during the recent > > >> > >> host upgrade. > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > How are things looking? Is it likely that we can have a 3.5.0 > > >> > > alpha release week or are we still blocked on Jenkins? > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -rgs > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> Patrick > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Michi Mutsuzaki > > >> > >> <[email protected]> > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > I'll check in ZOOKEEPER-1683. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Alexander Shraer > > >> > >> > <[email protected]> > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> >> can we also have ZOOKEEPER-1683 in ? Camille gave a +1 and > > >> > >> >> all > > >> > >> subsequent > > >> > >> >> changes were formatting as suggested by Rakesh. > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Patrick Hunt > > >> > >> >> <[email protected] > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >>> 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/ZooKeepe > > >> > >> r- > > >> > 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 > > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > > >> > >> >>> > > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
