Thanks Alex. I've created a jira for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1984 Let's discuss further there.
I will try the patch on my jenkins box later today. Thanks! Patrick On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Alexander Shraer <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually if servers 1 and 3 are talking and 3 is elected and not 1, it means > that 3 also saw the reconfig. So it should also complete it when it reboots. > To debug this I suggest to print out the last seen config in the beginning > of leader.lead(). > > Is it possible that writing the .next file to disk fails ? > > Alternatively we could just remove this part of the test (attached patch) - > the test's goal is to check that the leader times out when it looses a > quorum of the new config, and the part of the test that fails now is not > needed to check that. There are other tests in ReconfigRecoveryTest that are > supposed to check recovery. > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Alexander Shraer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> yep, I think what happens is that server 3 is becoming leader and not >> server 1, so its not completing the reconfig. Let me think about how to >> solve this... >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Also if you want to submit a patch that provides more insight (logs) >>> for that operation/test lmk and I'll be happy to review/commit it. >>> Should help with debugging the issue and debugging in the field. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Here's the logs (attached) for the test that failed. Nothing stuck out >>> > at me - anything ring a bell? >>> > >>> > Patrick >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Alexander Shraer <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> Unfortunately doesn't look like we have enough logging going on there. >>> >> For example would be nice to know what's the committed config and last >>> >> seen >>> >> config >>> >> of the leader when it comes up (leader.lead()). and what configuration >>> >> is >>> >> sent in the NEWLEADER message >>> >> sent out in LeaderHandler: >>> >> >>> >> QuorumPacket newLeaderQP = new >>> >> QuorumPacket(Leader.NEWLEADER, >>> >> newLeaderZxid, >>> >> leader.self.getLastSeenQuorumVerifier() >>> >> .toString().getBytes(), null); >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I didn't know about the option to have a separate administrative >>> >> interface, >>> >> and just followed the flow of other commands... I agree that it would >>> >> be >>> >> cleaner. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Shraer >>> >>> <[email protected]> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > 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 ? >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> What should I look for in the logs? Any specific log messages that >>> >>> would help debug? >>> >>> >>> >>> > 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); >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> So I can turn off all access then? (read and write). Should we ship >>> >>> that as the default? We should add that to the docs. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the past we've always tried to hide this type of information from >>> >>> clients (e.g. we don't expose the zk server address to the client for >>> >>> a session). This seems like a very big departure. Why didn't we move >>> >>> it to a separate, administrative, interface? >>> >>> >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> >>> >>> > 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 >>> >>> >> <[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 >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >
