I may try to create an RC0 today. Any objections? Something critical we need?
Patrick On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>> >>> >> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>
