Hi Alex, I've also seen the test "testLeaderTimesoutOnNewQuorum" fail multiple times (not every time, but ~50%, so flakey) in the last few days. It's failing both on jdk6 and jdk7. (this is my personal jenkins, I haven't see any other failures than this during the past few days).
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError at org.apache.zookeeper.test.ReconfigTest.testServerHasConfig(ReconfigTest.java:127) at org.apache.zookeeper.test.ReconfigTest.testLeaderTimesoutOnNewQuorum(ReconfigTest.java:450) at org.apache.zookeeper.JUnit4ZKTestRunner$LoggedInvokeMethod.evaluate(JUnit4ZKTestRunner.java:52) Patrick On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Alexander Shraer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rakesh, > > Thanks for looking at this. In general even if we find the bug since we > should test it before committing a fix, it seems better to remove the test > for now and debug this on a build machine. I'm trying to get access to it. > > Looking at this log: > https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2380/testReport/org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum/ReconfigRecoveryTest/testCurrentObserverIsParticipantInNewConfig/ > > Something weird is going on. Sever 3 hasn't started yet, but version 200000000 > is already being sent around as committed! > > 2014-07-21 10:44:50,901 [myid:2] - INFO > [WorkerReceiver[myid=2]:FastLeaderElection$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 >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>
