On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:24 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > verified checksums, sigs > run all tests on Fedora 31 + JDK8 > checked rat, checkstyle, spotbugs > performed basic tests using JDK8 using the staged binaries. > > > Generally I don't like to self-vote, I have prepared the RC so I may be > biased.
As a release manager, your +1 (or at least, +0) is implied by the fact that you haven't chosen to withdraw a release, though I recommend your vote explicit before you close the vote. Everybody's vote is biased, but the release manager is just as likely to find a problem with the release as anybody else, so I think they should always check the release for themselves and vote. > > Any other binding +1 would be very appreciated. > btw we need another one (we only have me and Patrick as binding voters in > this thread) Based on recent releases, it seems to me that there are relatively few active PMC members who routinely provide binding votes on releases, but many more active committers who provide non-binding votes. Since I haven't been actively following ZK's mailing lists very long, I'm not sure how common it is to have so few binding votes for a release. However, one way this could be solved is by voting in more PMC members from the pool of committers. In general, a long-standing ASF principle is to keep the barrier to willing participants low (though individual PMCs have discretion over how low). In my personal opinion and from what little I've seen so far, ZooKeeper already has a sufficiently high quality pool of trustworthy committers, and code is gated through a pretty strict code review process, so there wouldn't be any harm to the project by just voting to promote all committers to PMC member (pending the mandatory 72-hour NOTICE/lazy approval to the ASF board). Many of the committers appear to be actively voting on releases already, but as non-binding, since only PMC votes count for releases. The only practical difference between PMC member and committer is voting rights and access to the private mailing list. Personally, I don't find these to be very compelling reasons to keep committers out of the PMC (often, it's better to have more voices in voting, and it's better to include committers on private discussions affecting code). This is why other projects I am active in, such as Apache Accumulo and Apache Fluo, operate under a "PMC == committer" paradigm. I don't know how well the ZooKeeper community would work this way, but I suspect it wouldn't be much different than how it works today, but you'd certainly have more binding votes available to make release decisions. That's just my $0.02 opinion anyway. Even if the ZK PMC doesn't invite all committers.... inviting a few of the active ones (especially those with good records of participating in release candidate testing/voting) to the PMC would definitely help releases go more smoothly and to prevent problems of too few binding voters in future. > > Enrico > > > Il giorno sab 25 apr 2020 alle ore 18:09 Enrico Olivelli < > eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > We still need a couple of binding VOTEs > > Please any PMC check this candidate > > > > Enrico > > > > Il Ven 24 Apr 2020, 06:31 Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:20 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Il giorno mer 22 apr 2020 alle ore 16:14 Norbert Kalmar > >> > <nkal...@cloudera.com.invalid> ha scritto: > >> > > >> > > Only thing I found is that the bin has netty-codec-4.1.49 license file > >> > > while the jar included is 4.1.48. I think the license version has a > >> typo > >> > in > >> > > the bugfix version. Not sure if it's a showstopper. > >> > > > >> > > >> > I don't consider it a showstopper. > >> > > >> > Do you have time to send a fix please ? > >> > This way if we have to roll out a new RC we can pick it up. > >> > > >> > >> Sorry - my bad on that one. > >> > >> I submitted a simple PR to fix it if you want to pull into the other > >> branches or have it ready if a respin is necessary: > >> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1333 > >> > >> Patrick > >> > >> > >> > > >> > We could anyhow update to 4.1.49.Final > >> > https://netty.io/news/2020/04/22/4-1-49-Final.html > >> > > >> > Enrico > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Otherwise LGTM: > >> > > - Signatures OK > >> > > - Compared to git and 3.6.0 > >> > > - Compiled both on Mac (without C client) and Linux (with C client) > >> > > - Run tests (from src) and server (from src and bin tarball), connect > >> > with > >> > > client and run simple commands > >> > > - Spotbugs and checkstyle passed > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Norbert > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:50 PM Szalay-Bekő Máté < > >> > > szalay.beko.m...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > +1 (non-binding) > >> > > > > >> > > > - I built the source code (-Pfull-build) on Ubuntu 18.04.3 using > >> > OpenJDK > >> > > > 8u242 and maven 3.6.0. > >> > > > - all the unit tests passed (both Java and C-client). > >> > > > - I also built and executed unit tests for zkpython > >> > > > - checkstyle and spotbugs passed > >> > > > - apache-rat passed > >> > > > - fatjar built > >> > > > - I executed a quick rolling-upgrade test from 3.5.7 to 3.6.1. > >> (using > >> > > > https://github.com/symat/zk-rolling-upgrade-test) > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 5:20 PM Enrico Olivelli < > >> eolive...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > This is a release candidate for 3.6.1. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > It is a bugfix release and it introduces a few bugfixes and new > >> > > features > >> > > > in > >> > > > > these areas: > >> > > > > - compatibility with applications built against 3.5 client > >> libraries > >> > > > > (restored a few non public APIs) > >> > > > > - update Netty to 4.1.48.Final > >> > > > > - ability to pass configuration as file in zkCli for TLS config > >> > > > > - Add setKeepAlive support for NIOServerCnxn > >> > > > > - Fix server side request throttling > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The full release notes is available at: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310801&version=12346764 > >> > > > > > >> > > > > *** Please download, test and vote by April 14th 2020, 23:59 > >> UTC+0. > >> > *** > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Source files: > >> > > > > https://people.apache.org/~eolivelli/zookeeper-3.6.1-candidate-1/ > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Maven staging repo: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachezookeeper-1058/ > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The release candidate tag in git to be voted upon: release-3.6.1-1 > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/tree/release-3.6.1-1 > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the > >> release: > >> > > > > https://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The staging version of the website is: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> https://people.apache.org/~eolivelli/zookeeper-3.6.1-candidate-1/website/ > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Should we release this candidate? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Enrico Olivelli > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >