Re: [VOTE] Release 4.14.2, release candidate #1

+1 - Verified signature and digest - Built locally and with Pravega - Ran unit tests - Ran local smoke tests with standalone - Checked NOTICE and LICENSE files -Flavio > On 20 Aug 2021, at 11:06, Yong Zhang wrote: > > +1 > > - verify the source package shasum, and asc > - verify binary

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.14.2

It sounds like there are more vulnerabilities that can be addressed with upgrades: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/2511 Do we want to proceed with 4.14.2 and consider a 4.14.3 that addresses other vulnerabilities or try to address

Re: Running without journal

+1, it makes sense to enable bookies to run without duplicating IOs for entry data. I'm curious to see how you justify removing the ledger as opposed to removing the ledger storage and preserving the journal. I suspect that the random reads against the ledger storage matter more to you than the

Re: Clean build and NOTICE (was: Re: [VOTE] Release 4.13.0, release candidate #0)

hey happen due to "flaky" tests > > - Henry > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 2:15 PM Flavio Junqueira wrote: > >> A couple of things: >> >> 1- I haven't been able to get a clean build, I'll list the tests failures >> I observed below. >> 2- We

Clean build and NOTICE (was: Re: [VOTE] Release 4.13.0, release candidate #0)

A couple of things: 1- I haven't been able to get a clean build, I'll list the tests failures I observed below. 2- We need to update the year range in the NOTICE file to say 2021 instead of 2020. -Flavio [ERROR] org.apache.bookkeeper.client.SlowBookieTest.testSlowBookieAndFastFailOn Time

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

lbacks once the operations meet the AQ requirements. But there is a huge >> amount of memory (throughput * timeout period) referenced by a slow bookie. >> Hence we have to add a memory-based throttling mechanism as Matteo >> suggested. >> >> If we want to add the r

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

id violating safety, we make such an entry part of the closed ledger. -Flavio > On 18 Jan 2021, at 19:55, Sijie Guo wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:18 AM Flavio Junqueira <mailto:f...@apache.org>> wrote: > >>>>> Regarding recovery reads, r

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

ing (1) to simplify the job of the application. -Flavio > Thanks, > Sijie > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:10 AM Flavio Junqueira wrote: > >> In the scenario that WQ > AQ, a client acknowledges the add of an entry e >> to the application once it receives AQ b

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

d the ledger >>> recovery process ends there. This means that given the responses >>> b1->success, b2->NoSuchLedger, b3->NoSuchLedger, whether the read is >>> considered successful is non-deterministic. >>> >>> Regarding recovery reads, recovery read doe

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

gt; the entries in the sealed ledger can always be read and can be read >> consistently. >> >> I am not sure it is a problem unless I misunderstand it. >> >> - Sijie >> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:43 AM Jack Vanlightly >> wrote: >>

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

ntly? > > I also agree and was pretty surprised when I discovered the behaviour. It > is not something that users expect and I think we need to correct it. So > I'm with you. > > What's the best way to share the TLA+ findings? > > Jack > > > > > > On Fri,

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

> Let's say we have WQ 3 and AQ 2. An add (e100) has reached AQ and the > confirm callback to the client is called and the LAC is set to 100.Now the > 3rd bookie times out. Ensemble change is executed and all pending adds that > are above the LAC of 100 are replayed to another bookie, meaning that

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

is eventually written WQ ways and that it is observable by readers when the ledger is closed. -Flavio > On 14 Jan 2021, at 18:34, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Flavio > > Il giorno gio 14 gen 2021 alle ore 17:56 Flavio Junqueira > ha scritto: > >> Using your example, the Pend

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

have failed altogether, in which case the entry needs to be replicated in a new bookie. -Flavio > On 13 Jan 2021, at 17:28, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > > > Il giorno mer 13 gen 2021 alle ore 17:05 Flavio Junqueira <mailto:f...@apache.org>> ha scritto: >> We sh

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

n though the application is willing to receive a confirmation after |AQ| bookie responses. What am I missing? -Flavio > On 13 Jan 2021, at 11:30, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Flavio > > Il giorno mar 12 gen 2021 alle ore 17:26 Flavio Junqueira <mailto:f...@apache.org

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

I have observed the issue that Matteo describes and I also attributed the problem to the absence of a back pressure mechanism in the client. Issue #2497 was not about that, though. There was some corruption going on that was leading to the server receiving garbage. -Flavio > On 8 Jan 2021,

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

Hi Jack, > I've recently modelled the BookKeeper protocol in TLA+ and can confirm that > once confirmed, that an entry is not replayed to another bookie. Should I assume that you modeled it after the code? Otherwise, what did you use as a reference? Is the TLA+ spec available anywhere? It

Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper 4.11.1 release candidate 1

+1 - built from sources (it did show a few flaky tests, though) - checked LICENSE and NOTICE - checked that dependencies is staging repo are correctly resolved - verified digest and signature -Flavio > On 12 Oct 2020, at 13:52, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > UP ! > > Enrico > > Il giorno mar 6

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.11.1, release candidate #0

-1. The notice file says `Copyright 2011-2018`, and we need to update the years so that the range is `2011-2020`: https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice I'm wondering additionally whether there is anything that we bundle

Build passing while tests are failing?

I was checking the builds of some of the PRs in the queue, and I noticed at least one in which there are test failures while the build indicates success: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/runs/1174551641?check_suite_focus=true

Re: Log truncation and sync up when bookie fails and rejoins

Hi Umesh, The BookKeeper protocol is closer to register protocols than it is to consensus protocols, although we do need consensus for agreement on the closed state of a ledger. A ledger has a single writer, and either the writer closes it naturally or a reader needs to close it by running a

Re: [Draft] bookkeeper board report - August 2017

Thanks for putting this together, a few comments: - Yahoo! Pulsar is now an Apache Incubator project, it is better to refer to it as Apache Pulsar instead. - "the 4.5 release is also there. It is due in this August" -> "release 4.5 is almost complete and it is due in August". - "at Mar 2017"

Re: Git protected branches

It's kind of odd that we have to go through infra to do this. Such a configuration feels like should be under the control of committers or at least the PMC. Thanks for doing it in any case, Enrico. -Flavio > On 13 Jul 2017, at 01:55, Jia Zhai wrote: > >  > > On Thu,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] JV Jujjuri joins the Apache BookKeeper PMC

Congrats, JV! -F > On 07 Jul 2017, at 00:11, Charan Reddy G wrote: > > Congrats JV! > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > Congrats JV ! > > Il gio 6 lug 2017, 18:24 Sijie Guo

community meeting?

Is there a meeting scheduled for today? The page says that the next one is on Jun 15. -Flavio

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-1099) Make bookie automatically create folders on new machine.

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-1099?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16059431#comment-16059431 ] Flavio Junqueira commented on BOOKKEEPER-1099: -- I agree with [~hustlmsp]. If you know

Re: Official Bookkeeper Docker Image

I haven't tested exhaustively, but as a first approximation, it works for me. I was able to get bookies up and running following the steps in the repo description, with the caveat that I had to use a different image name. I have also left some comments in the PR, but it looks like you found an

Re: Official Bookkeeper Docker Image

parameters. -Flavio > On 20 Jun 2017, at 17:41, Francesco Caliumi - Diennea > <francesco.cali...@diennea.com> wrote: > > Hi Flavio, > > On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 15:40 +0200, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > > Hey Francesco, > > Thanks for putting this together. I hav

Re: Official Bookkeeper Docker Image

Hey Francesco, Thanks for putting this together. I have a couple of comments from our side: - I'm not sure whether this is an issue for others, and would actually be interested in hearing whether it is or not, but the use of Alpine is a deal breaker for us because of the GPL lawsuit stories

Re: Jenkins Pull-Request Build

Yeah, I think it is fine to delete that job. Given this line in the config: curl http://people.apache.org/~ivank/debug.diff | patch -p0 I suspect Ivan created it for debugging. Does anyone else see a problem with deleting this job:

Re: GitHub permissions

Agreed that it is best to have the Apache pre-commit build run successfully before merging. -Flavio > On 09 Jun 2017, at 11:12, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2017-06-09 11:06 GMT+02:00 Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org>: >> I just checked t

Re: GitHub permissions

I just checked the configuration in jenkins and the retention of a build is currently 14 days and no max number of jobs. That should be sufficient, otherwise we might end up overwhelming jenkins. -Flavio > On 09 Jun 2017, at 10:58, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > >

Re: GitHub permissions

I can increase retention if that helps. -Flavio > On 09 Jun 2017, at 10:51, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Hi, > I would like to ask infra permissions to edit pull requests of other > users, at least "close"/"reopen" to force automatic QA. > > We have a short backlog of PR QA

Re: Releases 4.5.0 and 4.4.1

Salesforce > branches in 4.5.0, unless there is a critical bug coming up. We defer > creating 4.4.1 until it is really needed. > > - Sijie > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi there, >> >> I wanted to che

Releases 4.5.0 and 4.4.1

Hi there, I wanted to check about the status of our releases. According to jira, there are only 3 blockers and 2 of them are documentation issues for 4.5.0. Does it mean that the we should be able to release 4.5.0 shortly? There are already 116 issues resolved for 4.5.0 also according to jira.

Re: [VOTE] Use Github Issues for Issue Tracking

Sure, feel free to close the vote. Thanks for bearing with me. -Flavio > On 06 Jun 2017, at 18:07, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org > <mailto:f...@apache.org>> wrote: > >>

Re: [VOTE] Use Github Issues for Issue Tracking

> On 05 Jun 2017, at 18:30, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Ok, so why don't we make clear what we are voting for? > > If this vote is approved, then the outcome is th

Re: [DISCUSS] Move Bookkeeper Website from CMS to Jekyll (or other static generators)

I don't have a super strong opinion here, but I'm not sure I understand the concern. The textile files are stored in the repo, so any doc changes should be reviewed and committed as any other code change, no? Granted that it is in the hands of a committer to push the changes to the web site,

Re: [VOTE] Use Github Issues for Issue Tracking

t; > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Thanks for pushing this through, Sijie. I have a couple of concerns about >> this proposal: >> >> 1- There is a proposal, but I'm not seeing a workflow defined for github &g

Re: [VOTE] Use Github Issues for Issue Tracking

Thanks for pushing this through, Sijie. I have a couple of concerns about this proposal: 1- There is a proposal, but I'm not seeing a workflow defined for github issues. Should we define one and make that part of the vote? 2- I'm not sure what the binding votes are and what the approval process

Re: [discuss] moving the community meeting to Friday

Rao Jujjuri <jujj...@gmail.com>: > >> Hmm others joined. Did you use this? >> >> https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/salesforce.com/bk-community-sa >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>&

Re: [discuss] moving the community meeting to Friday

It says: "Requesting to join the video call". -Flavio > On 10 Feb 2017, at 16:01, Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri wrote: > > Thanks! > > Please join this link. > > https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/salesforce.com/bk-community-sa > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Enrico

Re: Community Meetings in this month

Is there any chance we can move his meeting to Friday same time? I have a constraint I can get around on Thursdays, and I'd like to join occasionally. Thanks, -Flavio > On 26 Jan 2017, at 18:22, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Very good. > Thanks > > Il gio 26 gen 2017, 18:58

Re: Helping with BookKeeper at Yahoo

Good to see you on this list, Bobby. -Flavio > On 12 Jan 2017, at 16:42, Bobby Evans wrote: > > Hi, > > My name is Bobby Evans and I wanted to introduce myself to everyone. My > team is going to start helping out the Pulsar team here at Yahoo in > maintaining/improving

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-974) make pushing a docker image as part of the release procedure

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-974?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15738007#comment-15738007 ] Flavio Junqueira commented on BOOKKEEPER-974: - yeah, we don't. some volunteer did

Re: Next Community Meeting?

bit confused. >>> >>> thank you Jia it will be very interesting >>> >>> Enrico >>> >>> Il mer 30 nov 2016, 12:57 Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> ha scritto: >>> >>>> +1. >>>> It is my pleasure to introdu

Re: A bookkeeper DCOS/mesos package

se two >> projects in sync? When either side releases new versions. >> 3. In the pull request I see lot of references to Docker. Does it mean this >> runs both on Docker container and Mesos container? >> 4. Will it be too much effort to run this on vanilla Doc

Re: A bookkeeper DCOS/mesos package

Is there a jira for this? Or are you posting this here just so that the community is aware, Jia? One question about this packaging: what happens when there is a new release of bookkeeper, is there anything we need to update? Is it worth adding to the release process? Thanks, -Flavio > On 08

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-882) Document that BookKeeper servers will shutdown on losing quorum

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-882?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15636338#comment-15636338 ] Flavio Junqueira commented on BOOKKEEPER-882: - What is quorum referring to here

Re: [Discuss] 64 bits ledger id

t need to. > Thanks, > JV > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi JV, >> >> Do I understand correctly that you're proposing to generate 128-bit UUIDs >> locally to use as ledger ids? If so, I'm

Re: bookkeeper dev/sync meeting

tication and Authorization >> - Ledger Id beyond 32 bits (64 bits, 128 bits) >> - Ensemble placement for tier storage >> - Disk corruption detection and repair >> - .. >> (JV also has a list of improvements to add :)) >> >> - Sijie >> >>

Re: [Discuss] 64 bits ledger id

Hi JV, Do I understand correctly that you're proposing to generate 128-bit UUIDs locally to use as ledger ids? If so, I'm concerned that even if the probability of collision is low, there is still a chance of having collisions with no way to verify in the case you aren't relying on a metadata

Re: bookkeeper dev/sync meeting

I think it is great to have such meetings. The Kafka community, for example, organizes meetings to discuss KIPs: https://goo.gl/OK0Rhi and if we have such meetings, I'd suggest we make sure to propose an agenda beforehand so that all people participated can join. Also,

[jira] [Created] (BOOKKEEPER-947) Update workflow information on the web site

Flavio Junqueira created BOOKKEEPER-947: --- Summary: Update workflow information on the web site Key: BOOKKEEPER-947 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-947 Project: Bookkeeper

Re: Proposed board report [August]

Hey Sijie, Thanks for putting together. Have a look at https://reporter.apache.org/ It'll tell you precisely the additional information you're missing. -Flavio > On 01 Aug 2016, at 07:31, Sijie Guo wrote: > > Hello folks, > > We have a board

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New BookKeeper Committer: JV Jujjuri

Congrats, JV! -Flavio > On 14 Jun 2016, at 08:21, Arun M. Krishnakumar wrote: > > Congrats JV! > > Thanks, > Arun > >> On Jun 14, 2016, at 12:04 AM, Charan Reddy G wrote: >> >> Congrats JV! >> >> Thanks, >> Charan >> >>> On Tuesday, June 14,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Matteo Merli joins the Apache BookKeeper PMC

Congrats, Matteo! -Flavio > On 27 May 2016, at 17:14, Sijie Guo wrote: > > On behalf of the Apache BookKeeper PMC I am pleased to announce that Matteo > Merli has accepted our invitation to become a PMC member on the Apache > BookKeeper project. Matteo has been an active

Re: Confluence documentation

Thanks, Enrico! The wiki is more informal in the sense that the documentation there isn't really specific to versions and such. We are more strict about the official project documentation. Go ahead and keep populating that page, we can iterate over the content as you make progress. -Flavio >

Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper 4.4.0 Release Candidate 0

+1, I have checked NOTICE and LICENSE. I have run the rat tool to make sure we aren't missing anything with respect to licenses. I have run tests. The one minor thing is that the NOTICE file says 2015 rather than 2016. We need to update it for the next release, unless there is something else

RC Highlights (was: Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper 4.4.0 Release Candidate 0)

Please try to avoid discussions on the vote thread. It is fine to raise issues about the RC and such, but raise it in a separate e-mail thread. -Flavio > On 11 May 2016, at 07:41, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > I think that it will be more useful for users the #2 option.

Re: Proposed board report [May]

in u...@bookkeeper.apache.org > > 916 issues opened to date, 26 since 2016-03-03 > 641 issues resolved to date, 28 since 2016-03-03 > 59 people have reported issues, 7 since 2016-03-03 > 33 people have contributed patches, 7 since 2016-03-03 > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:42

Re: Logo

;jujj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ah. Great. Log on our website is so tiny (http://bookkeeper.apache.org/ > <http://bookkeeper.apache.org/>) > hence it did not register me. > > Thanks for pointing out. > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apach

Re: Jenkins build is back to normal : bookkeeper-master #1371

Very happy to see that the build is mostly back to normal. The last build that failed seems to be due to a jenkins issue. Great job everyone! -Flavio > On 07 May 2016, at 14:14, Apache Jenkins Server > wrote: > > See

Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper 4.4.0 Release Candidate 0

We typically only share the release notes and let people figure out what matters to them. It is up to the release manager to decide whether there is something important to highlight or not. I agree that testing the upgrade path is pretty important. If you have tried, feel free to report back

Re: BookKeeper release 4.4 plan

There is no pending issue for 4.4.0 according to jira, so the plan sounds good to me, +1. -Flavio > On 04 May 2016, at 20:10, Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri wrote: > > +1. > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >> No objections. +1 for the

Re: Another project using Bookkeeper - Majordodo

; > Thanks > > 2016-05-03 9:12 GMT+02:00 Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org>: > >> Enrico, >> >> Please check that you have edit access to the wiki. >> >> -Flavio >> >>> On 01 May 2016, at 13:11, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...

Re: Another project using Bookkeeper - Majordodo

>> I don't think I have the admin access to the space 'bookkeeper'. do you? >> >> - Sijie >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Sijie, >>> >>> Are you able to grant acc

Re: OutOfMemoryError error on Jenkins

previous OOMs? and how did we > took care of them? i.e do you have to tweak any > JVM parameters? or bug fixes went in? or they are still lurking? If so, > what are the situations we may see them? > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Flavio Junqueira < > fpjunque...@yahoo.com

Re: Another project using Bookkeeper - Majordodo

Sijie, Are you able to grant access to Enrico? -Flavio > On 19 Apr 2016, at 08:08, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My username is eolivelli at cwiki.apache.org > Thanks > > -- Enrico > > > 2016-04-19 17:05 GMT+02:00 Flavio Junquei

Re: Another project using Bookkeeper - Majordodo

wiki. >>>> >>>> Documentation on Majordodo website is still very incomplete we will >>>> describe more completely the usage of Bookkeeper in Majordodo >>> internals. If >>>> you want I can write some post as soon as I can >>>

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-917) LocalBookKeeperTest seems to be silently failing

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-917?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15230455#comment-15230455 ] Flavio Junqueira commented on BOOKKEEPER-917: - Right, but it doesn't pass even if I

[jira] [Created] (BOOKKEEPER-917) LocalBookKeeperTest seems to be silently failing

Flavio Junqueira created BOOKKEEPER-917: --- Summary: LocalBookKeeperTest seems to be silently failing Key: BOOKKEEPER-917 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-917 Project

[jira] [Updated] (BOOKKEEPER-880) Make LedgerHandle implement AutoCloseable

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-880?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Flavio Junqueira updated BOOKKEEPER-880: Fix Version/s: 4.4.0 > Make LedgerHandle implement AutoClosea

Precommit test failures

I've noticed that the following tests are failing consistently in Jenkins Test Result (7 failures / +7) org.apache.bookkeeper.replication.TestReplicationWorker.testRWZKSessionLost[0] org.apache.bookkeeper.replication.TestReplicationWorker.testRWShutdownOnLocalBookieReadonlyTransition[0]

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-870) Change the default value for bookie settings.

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-870?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15222907#comment-15222907 ] Flavio Junqueira commented on BOOKKEEPER-870: - [~si...@apache.org] do you want to create

Re: BookKeeper 4.4.0

; Sure, > how can I help concretely ? > > I'm waiting for the version to be RC to try it on our dev/qa environments at > Diennea, but as far as I know there are a lot of merges to be done on 4.4.0 > and any test won't be so useful > > - Enrico > > Il giorno gio, 31/03

Re: BookKeeper 4.4.0

The status according to jira is the following: - No blocker - 5 patch available - 17 open issues https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER/fixforversion/12325566/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-issues-panel

Re: [Discuss] Release 4.5.0

Looks like a great list to me. -Flavio > On 14 Mar 2016, at 06:32, Sijie Guo wrote: > > I started this thread to discuss the new release 4.5.0. I marked it as a > 3-months release schedule, from 04/01 to 06/31. I'd hope to keep this in a > reasonable period, not getting into

Re: Release 4.4.0

Thanks, Sijie and Matteo, for working on this. Even though I'd like to see 4.4.0 out, if all it contains are bug fixes, then we shouldn't cut a new branch. What is it that you guys are planning on having that justifies cutting a new branch? -Flavio > On 14 Mar 2016, at 06:16, Sijie Guo

Re: Another project using Bookkeeper - Majordodo

You should probably update the poweredby page too, Sijie. -Flavio > On 23 Feb 2016, at 18:11, Sijie Guo wrote: > > Yup, Enrico, do you mind adding your use case to the wiki? > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Uma gangumalla > wrote: > >> Exited to

Re: Another project using Bookkeeper - Majordodo

Thanks for sharing this, Enrico. This is exciting. -Flavio > On 23 Feb 2016, at 11:47, Enrico Olivelli - Diennea > wrote: > > Hi, > I would like to share with Bookkeepers the general availability of Majordodo > http://majordodo.org/. > > Majordodo is our

Re: github comments posted on jira

/issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11186 >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Do you know how to request to turn it off? >>> >>> - Sijie >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Flavi

[jira] [Updated] (BOOKKEEPER-879) Record ledger creation time

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-879?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Flavio Junqueira updated BOOKKEEPER-879: Attachment: (was: fibgcjfb.png) > Record ledger creation t

[jira] [Updated] (BOOKKEEPER-879) Record ledger creation time

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-879?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Flavio Junqueira updated BOOKKEEPER-879: Attachment: (was: jjihegja.png) > Record ledger creation t

github comments posted on jira

I think we should turn off the feature that posts on jira issues the comments we make on pull requests. It is going be pretty noisy unnecessarily. -Flavio

Re: BookKeeper Wiki links

Fixed, Uma. Thanks a lot for pointing it out. -Flavio > On 29 Jan 2016, at 10:44, Uma gangumalla wrote: > > Hi Devs, > > Looks like 3.2 Documentation link from BookKeeper wiki is no more a valid > link. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BOOKKEEPER/BookKeeper

[jira] [Created] (BOOKKEEPER-884) 4.3.2 link points to 4.3.1 documentation

Flavio Junqueira created BOOKKEEPER-884: --- Summary: 4.3.2 link points to 4.3.1 documentation Key: BOOKKEEPER-884 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-884 Project: Bookkeeper

Re: Documentation

Thanks, Ivan. To make that simple change, do I need to rebuild the whole site? -Flavio > On 12 Jan 2016, at 16:59, Ivan Kelly wrote: > >> but couldn't really determine where exactly to make the change. Can I get >> some help here, please? > > You should be changing files

Documentation

I'm a bit confused about how to fix BK-884. I had a look at cms.apache.org and here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BOOKKEEPER/Building+the+website+and+documentation

Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper 4.3.2 Release Candidate 1

cussion that Ivan raised before. I'd suggest moving them to a > contrib module. > > I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-883 for > bookkeeper-benchmark timeout. I marked it for 4.4.0 to not block 4.3.2. > > what do you think? > > - Sijie > >

Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper 4.3.2 Release Candidate 1

To make it clear, what are voting on precisely? I can't get a clean build because of bookkeeper-benchmark and hedwig. Are we supposed to ignore the failures of those projects and take only the result of bookkeeper-server? If so, perhaps we should consider for next time not including those when

Re: Cannot compile 4.3.2 tag

That's odd, it works for me, check my output: $ git checkout tags/release-4.3.2 Note: checking out 'tags/release-4.3.2'. You are in 'detached HEAD' state. You can look around, make experimental changes and commit them, and you can discard any commits you make in this state without impacting any

Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper 4.3.2 Release Candidate 0

Can't you delete the tag and recreate it with the appropriate fixes? -Flavio > On 17 Nov 2015, at 19:03, Sijie Guo wrote: > > Hello Matteo: > > the 4.3.2 tag seems to miss file. It couldn't compile. > > - Sijie > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Matteo Merli

Re: Proposed board report [Nov]

t;> BookKeeper community organized a messaging meetup on 9/21. >>>> >>>> Infrastructure issues on committer permission on updating KEYS and >>> staging >>>> repository. >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IN

[jira] [Updated] (BOOKKEEPER-881) upgrade surefire plugin to 2.19

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-881?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Flavio Junqueira updated BOOKKEEPER-881: Fix Version/s: 4.4.0 > upgrade surefire plugin to 2

[jira] [Updated] (BOOKKEEPER-881) upgrade surefire plugin to 2.19

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-881?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Flavio Junqueira updated BOOKKEEPER-881: Component/s: build > upgrade surefire plugin to 2

Re: Proposed board report [Nov]

Sijie, We do have an infra issue, right? We can't get Matteo to stage the RC, so I think we should add it to the report. -Flavio > On 12 Nov 2015, at 09:03, Sijie Guo wrote: > > Hello folks: > > We have a board report due this month. Here is the draft. > > Let me know if

Re: Proposed board report [Nov]

11 > 598 issues resolved to date, 10 since 2015-08-11 > 55 people have reported issues, 6 since 2015-08-11 > 29 people have contributed patches, 7 since 2015-08-11 > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Sijie, We do have

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-881) upgrade surefire plugin to 2.19

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-881?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15001939#comment-15001939 ] Flavio Junqueira commented on BOOKKEEPER-881: - I'm fine with the upgrade, but while

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-870) Change the default value for bookie settings.

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-870?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=14980296#comment-14980296 ] Flavio Junqueira commented on BOOKKEEPER-870: - They look mostly good to me, [~hustlmsp

  1   2   >