[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16468474#comment-16468474
]
liyuzhou commented on ZOOKEEPER-3035:
-
Sorry, I know
> what does these opeartion
See https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper_branch34_jdk7/1912/
###
## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE
###
[...truncated 38.93 KB...]
[junit] Running org.apache.zookeep
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2982?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16468194#comment-16468194
]
Hudson commented on ZOOKEEPER-2982:
---
FAILURE: Integrated in Jenkins build ZooKeeper-
See https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/15/
###
## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE
###
[...truncated 140.54 KB...]
[junit] Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors:
Let's put it this way:
1- The interpretation of next() is "give me the next server's IP address
that I should connect to and do whatever preparation (resolution) is
necessary to do so".
The answer could be:
a) I'm done, here it is,
b) there's a problem with the next item in the list, for instance
Hi Flavio,
The merge script is branch agnostic - it only cares about the pull request
number. As long as in the pull request the correct target branch is
specified, the merge script will do its job by merging the change to the
specified target branch. I guess we could commit the same script to
bra
Github user EronWright closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/468
---
Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-github-pr-build/1667/
###
## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE
###
[...truncated 40.24 MB...]
[exec] +1 @aut
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3012?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16468095#comment-16468095
]
Hadoop QA commented on ZOOKEEPER-3012:
--
+1 overall. GitHub Pull Request Build
Could anyone remind me why we don't have the merge script on branch-3.5? Say I
have a change that targets branch-3.5 alone. Shouldn't I be able to have a PR
that targets branch-3.5 and use the merge script?
Thanks,
-Flavio
Github user fpj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/513
The reviews and approvals for this change are in pull request #468 . The
intention of this PR was to rebase it to master, while PR #468 targeted
branch-3.5.
---
Github user fpj commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/468
Merged to branch 3.5 as part of merging pull request #513, which targeted
master.
---
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2982?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Flavio Junqueira resolved ZOOKEEPER-2982.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Issue resolved by pull request 513
[https://github.com/apach
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/513
---
Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-github-pr-build/1666/
###
## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE
###
[...truncated 79.69 MB...]
[exec] +1 @aut
GitHub user anmolnar opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/515
ZOOKEEPER-3012. Fix unit test: testDataDirAndDataLogDir should not use
hardcode test folders
Replaced by creating random folders.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3012
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3012?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16468058#comment-16468058
]
Hadoop QA commented on ZOOKEEPER-3012:
--
+1 overall. GitHub Pull Request Build
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2982?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16468044#comment-16468044
]
Eron Wright commented on ZOOKEEPER-2982:
-
Note that I opened two PRs - one fo
GitHub user anmolnar opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/514
ZOOKEEPER-3012. Fix unit test: testDataDirAndDataLogDir should not use
hardcode test folders
A little bit more than just fixing the hardcoded folder names. Because the
original issue was only o
Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-github-pr-build/1665/
###
## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE
###
[...truncated 79.02 MB...]
[exec] +1 @aut
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2982?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16468019#comment-16468019
]
Hadoop QA commented on ZOOKEEPER-2982:
--
+1 overall. GitHub Pull Request Build
Github user EronWright commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/468
Opened a PR for rebasing onto master: #513.
---
GitHub user EronWright opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/513
ZOOKEEPER-2982: Re-try DNS hostname -> IP resolution if node connection
fails
This PR ports a fix from the 3.4 to the master branch, that was originally
made in ZOOKEEPER-1506.
Close
The refactoring did not seem justifiable at first, so my reaction to it. You
have clarified the reason for including the changes, and I actually like it.
About the exception, there are two points for me:
1- You don't really need to throw to execute the plan you described.
2- In the case we do th
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1159?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andor Molnar updated ZOOKEEPER-1159:
Fix Version/s: (was: 3.5.3)
(was: 3.6.0)
3.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1159?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andor Molnar resolved ZOOKEEPER-1159.
-
Resolution: Won't Fix
Fix Version/s: (was: 3.5.4)
3.5.3
Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-github-pr-build/1664/
###
## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE
###
[...truncated 79.30 MB...]
[exec] +1 @aut
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2959?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16467905#comment-16467905
]
Hadoop QA commented on ZOOKEEPER-2959:
--
+1 overall. GitHub Pull Request Build
GitHub user lavacat opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/512
ZOOKEEPER-2959: ignore accepted epoch and LEADERINFO ack from observers
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2959
- added getVotingMembers id check in getEpochToPropose and wai
Sorry, I thought you were against the whole refactoring.
"2- That we discuss separately whether we want to change the behaviour of
the next()in the HostProvider interface."
>From this it seemed to me, it's not just a polishing issue, but maybe I've
gotten you wrong.
Anyway, there're 2 contention
I'm happy to do that once we have an agreement.
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote:
> It might be a good idea to document whatever we end up doing.
>
> -Flavio
>
> > On 8 May 2018, at 17:22, Andor Molnar wrote:
> >
> > "If refactoring is necessary to address the issue, th
Can you list what the contention points are according to you? Feel free to do
that in the PR as well, I want to make sure we have the same understanding of
the points that still need to be resolved. From where I stand, there is no
major issue pending other than one polishing issue that I brought
Github user shralex commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/503
+1 looks good
---
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Edward Ribeiro resolved ZOOKEEPER-3035.
---
Resolution: Not A Problem
> what does these opeartion code mean
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16467666#comment-16467666
]
Edward Ribeiro commented on ZOOKEEPER-3035:
---
Please, don't open Jira issues
See https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper_branch34_openjdk7/1909/
###
## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE
###
[...truncated 39.68 KB...]
[junit] Running org.apache.zoo
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
liyuzhou updated ZOOKEEPER-3035:
Description:
I'm reading the source code, but I often can not understand the operation code
mea
liyuzhou created ZOOKEEPER-3035:
---
Summary: what does these opeartion code mean
Key: ZOOKEEPER-3035
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3035
Project: ZooKeeper
Issue Type: Wish
Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-github-pr-build/1663/
###
## LAST 60 LINES OF THE CONSOLE
###
[...truncated 78.71 MB...]
[exec] +1 @aut
It might be a good idea to document whatever we end up doing.
-Flavio
> On 8 May 2018, at 17:22, Andor Molnar wrote:
>
> "If refactoring is necessary to address the issue, then it should be part
> of the PR."
>
> Agreed. I think it is and it also makes things a lot more simpler, so it's
> easi
"If refactoring is necessary to address the issue, then it should be part
of the PR."
Agreed. I think it is and it also makes things a lot more simpler, so it's
easier to review.
"I'm not sure what kind of confirmation you are after here. Could you
elaborate, please?"
I'm just wondering what cou
Hi Andor,
Thanks for your work on addressing the issue.
> On 8 May 2018, at 16:06, Andor Molnar wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Updating this thread, because the PR is still being review on GitHub.
>
> So, the reason why I refactored the original behaviour of
> StaticHostProvider is that I believe that it
Github user fpj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/451#discussion_r186759876
--- Diff: src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/client/StaticHostProvider.java
---
@@ -111,9 +154,18 @@ public InetSocketAddress next(long spinDelay) {
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote:
> Hi Pat,
>
> I'm ready to merge ZK-2982. It is a one line change that is actually a
> mistake that was made during the port of the changes from 3.4 to 3.5. It is
> just bringing in the line that was missed.
>
>
It looks like that was missed
Github user anmolnar commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/451#discussion_r186741712
--- Diff: src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/client/StaticHostProvider.java
---
@@ -30,76 +31,118 @@
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.
Hi,
Updating this thread, because the PR is still being review on GitHub.
So, the reason why I refactored the original behaviour of
StaticHostProvider is that I believe that it's trying to do something which
is not its responsibility. Please tell me if there's a good historical
reason for that.
Github user anmolnar commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/451#discussion_r186735649
--- Diff: src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/client/HostProvider.java ---
@@ -53,7 +54,7 @@
* @param spinDelay
*Millisecon
Github user anmolnar commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/451#discussion_r186734788
--- Diff: src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/client/StaticHostProvider.java
---
@@ -111,9 +154,18 @@ public InetSocketAddress next(long spinDelay) {
Github user eribeiro commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/451#discussion_r186694289
--- Diff: src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/client/StaticHostProvider.java
---
@@ -30,76 +31,118 @@
import org.slf4j.Logger;
import org.slf4j.
Github user fpj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/451#discussion_r186690327
--- Diff: src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/client/StaticHostProvider.java
---
@@ -111,9 +154,18 @@ public InetSocketAddress next(long spinDelay) {
Github user fpj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/451#discussion_r186690242
--- Diff: src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/client/StaticHostProvider.java
---
@@ -111,9 +154,18 @@ public InetSocketAddress next(long spinDelay) {
Github user fpj commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/451#discussion_r186689865
--- Diff: src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/client/HostProvider.java ---
@@ -53,7 +54,7 @@
* @param spinDelay
*Milliseconds to
Hi Pat,
I'm ready to merge ZK-2982. It is a one line change that is actually a mistake
that was made during the port of the changes from 3.4 to 3.5. It is just
bringing in the line that was missed.
As you are the RM, I'll follow your instructions. I'm fine with either merging
it today or doing
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2982?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16467049#comment-16467049
]
Flavio Junqueira commented on ZOOKEEPER-2982:
-
Based on this comment, I'm
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2982?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Flavio Junqueira reassigned ZOOKEEPER-2982:
---
Assignee: Flavio Junqueira
> Re-try DNS hostname -> IP resolution
> -
55 matches
Mail list logo