Looks like 3 hasn't been removed (unfortunately the assertion doesn't
include any msg detail, but that's the way it looks to me like the
test is setup):
if (leavingServers != null) {
for (String leaving : leavingServers)
Assert.assertFalse(configStr.contains("server.".concat(leaving)));
}
which is called from:
qu.restart(2);
// Now that 2 is back up, they'll complete the reconfig removing 3 and
// can process other ops.
testServerHasConfig(zkArr[1], null, leavingServers);
It seems like the problem is that testServerHasConfig is not waiting
for the configuration to be updated? In this case 2 was just restarted
and 3 hasn't had a chance to be removed? (on a slower machine say,
which might be why you aren't seeing the issue? hence the flakeyness)
Patrick
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Alexander Shraer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> 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$LoggedInvokeMethod.evaluate(JUnit4ZKTestRunner.java:52)
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Alexander Shraer <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Rakesh,
>> >
>> > Thanks for looking at this. In general even if we find the bug since we
>> > should test it before committing a fix, it seems better to remove the
>> test
>> > for now and debug this on a build machine. I'm trying to get access to
>> it.
>> >
>> > Looking at this log:
>> >
>> https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/ZooKeeper/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2380/testReport/org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum/ReconfigRecoveryTest/testCurrentObserverIsParticipantInNewConfig/
>> >
>> > Something weird is going on. Sever 3 hasn't started yet, but version
>> 200000000
>> > is already being sent around as committed!
>> >
>> > 2014-07-21 10:44:50,901 [myid:2] - INFO
>> > [WorkerReceiver[myid=2]:FastLeaderElection$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
>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>
>> >> > >> > >> >>> >
>> >> > >> > >> >>>
>> >> > >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
