FYI: Currently running some tests and I'm about to create the branch-3.5 branch.
Patrick On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> > >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > >>>>> >>> >> >> >> >>>>> >>> >> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>
