Hi Patrick, I'm not sure why you're seeing this - it consistently passes on my machine. In case you'd like to take a look, the test has tons of comments explaining the scenario. Let me know how I can help.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > 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$LoggedInvokeMethod.evaluate(JUnit4ZKTestRunner.java:52) > > Patrick > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Alexander Shraer <shra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Rakesh, > > > > Thanks for looking at this. In general even if we find the bug since we > > should test it before committing a fix, it seems better to remove the > test > > for now and debug this on a build machine. I'm trying to get access to > it. > > > > Looking at this log: > > > https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2380/testReport/org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum/ReconfigRecoveryTest/testCurrentObserverIsParticipantInNewConfig/ > > > > Something weird is going on. Sever 3 hasn't started yet, but version > 200000000 > > is already being sent around as committed! > > > > 2014-07-21 10:44:50,901 [myid:2] - INFO > > [WorkerReceiver[myid=2]:FastLeaderElection$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 <rake...@huawei.com> 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:shra...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: 22 July 2014 11:57 > >> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > >> 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 <ph...@apache.org> > 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 > >> > <rakeshr.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > lgtm +1 > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:37 PM, FPJ > >> > > <fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> > >> > 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:ph...@apache.org] > >> > >> > 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 > >> > >> > <r...@itevenworks.net> wrote: > >> > >> > > On 18 July 2014 10:32, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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 > >> > >> > >> <mi...@cs.stanford.edu> > >> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > I'll check in ZOOKEEPER-1683. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Alexander Shraer > >> > >> > >> > <shra...@gmail.com> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> >> <ph...@apache.org > >> > > > >> > >> > 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 > >> > >> > >> >>> <fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> 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 > >> > >> > >> >>> > <ph...@apache.org> > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> >>> >> <ph...@apache.org> > >> > >> > >> 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 <r...@itevenworks.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2014 6:37 AM, "Flavio Junqueira" > >> > >> > >> >>> <fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>> 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 < > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>> r...@itevenworks.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> On 2 July 2014 21:19, Patrick Hunt > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> <ph...@apache.org> > >> > >> > 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 > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> <fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> 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 < > >> > >> > >> ph...@apache.org> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>> 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 <fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> > 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 > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> <ph...@apache.org> > >> > >> > >> >>> 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 > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> > >> > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >
