Hmm. It doesn't really make sense to me - the reconfig should be completed
before
the servers come up and process new ops. We submitted the reconfig to
server 1, it timed out
on new quorum, but when 1 becomes leader again after 2 restarts 1 should
complete the reconfig.
is 1 becoming leader after 2 restarts ?
About admin controls - reconfig/getConfig are open to everyone, unless you
set permissions on the configuration znode being written during reconfig.
nodeRecord = getRecordForPath(ZooDefs.CONFIG_NODE);
checkACL(zks, nodeRecord.acl, ZooDefs.Perms.WRITE,
request.authInfo);
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Patrick Hunt <phu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <shra...@gmail.com>
> 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 <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
> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>
> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>
> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >
> >> >> > >> > >> >>>
> >> >> > >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>
