Re: [DISCUSS] Road to separated client/server jars

/2307 > > Best, > Kezhu Wang > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 5:17 AM Christopher wrote: > > > > I wasn't even thinking about OSGi. I didn't even know ZK built OSGi > > bundles until you mentioned it. I'm not too familiar with that, and > > don't know w

Re: [DISCUSS] Road to separated client/server jars

suitable package or module later. > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2307 > [2]: > https://github.com/kezhuw/zookeeper/commits/ZOOKEEPER-233-split-server-jar/ > [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4968 > [4]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/Z

Re: [DISCUSS] Road to separated client/server jars

Yeah, you will definitely need to have distinct java package names for java modules and even basic jar sealing. Rather than merely moving files to a new jar/maven module, it would be good to consider deprecating old classes, and creating new forked (copied) ones with new package names that match th

Re: Bump minimum required Java version for building ZK to 11

on JDK11, which is my biggest concern > about it. > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2025, at 19:11, Christopher wrote: > > > > Sorry for the confusion. I linked that PR mostly for my own reference > > to review to make a new PR. You can ignore that PR for now. I would > &

Re: Zookeeper 3.10.0 release date

#Roadmap-ReleaseNumbering > I personally think about it along these lines: "Upgrading between major > releases will generally require changes to user code". > The "annually" - I guess that was aspirational. :-) > > Regards, > > Patrick > > On Tue, Aug

Re: Zookeeper 3.10.0 release date

people running on Java 8 and 11 are > still covered. > > Best, > Andor > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2025, at 13:18, Christopher wrote: > > > > I have reservations about bumping the minimum runtime Java version to > > 17, because I have applications that use ZooK

Re: Bump minimum required Java version for building ZK to 11

he stable > branches 3.8 and 3.9. Does it make any sense? > > Andor > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2025, at 13:12, Christopher wrote: > > > > Thanks for bringing my suggestion to the mailing list for discussion. > > > > I wasn't aware that 17 was bei

Re: Zookeeper 3.10.0 release date

I have reservations about bumping the minimum runtime Java version to 17, because I have applications that use ZooKeeper client code that run Java 11. I think a more modest change would be to bump the required build version to 17, but keep the target version at 11. If this is being considered for 4

Re: Bump minimum required Java version for building ZK to 11

eeper/pull/2241) because there are some general POM cleanup stuff in that PR that would probably be good to borrow from that PR to include in a POM update. On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 10:37 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > > Hi team, > > Christopher has a suggestion on the Owasp upgrade PR w

Re: OWASP 8.3.1 parsing errors

This is becoming more and more common, that build plugins require newer JDK versions than the runtimes that some projects still target and support. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. As I've pointed out to other projects, or perhaps this one in the past, JDK 11 actually enforces Java 8 com

Re: Why do we upgrade logback only on the master branch?

without any new/final 3.8 releases. 3.9 has been available for some time, and is at least as stable as 3.8. Users should be upgrading to 3.9 instead of continuing to update 3.8 versions. On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:44 PM Andor Molnar wrote: > > Thanks Kezhu, I can support this approach too, but

Re: Why do we upgrade logback only on the master branch?

rade to 3.9.4. At the same time we have to create a 3.10.0 release off the > main branch or maybe 4.0.0. I don't have a strong opinion here either, but > I’m pretty confident that we should drop Java 8 support in the next “current” > release. > > Andor > > > > > &g

Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.9.4 candidate 1

Looking at the list of changes, I think I misunderstood the wording. This does include ZK code changes, but the specific logging dependency change did not involve ZK changes. Other fixes did involve ZK code changes. Is that correct? On Sat, Aug 9, 2025, 00:09 Christopher wrote: > -0 (

Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.9.4 candidate 1

-0 (non-binding). If no ZK changes occurred, then I don't think it's worth the effort and sends the message that ZK is responsible for users' classpath security. I think that's the wrong message to send, because users should be responsible for their classpath. Instead, I think a message to the use

Re: Why do we upgrade logback only on the master branch?

>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2025, at 15:34, Patrick Hunt wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm confused - this thread started with "OWASP reports CVEs on the 3.8 > >>>>>>> branch and noticed in the PRs that we should

Re: Why do we upgrade logback only on the master branch?

ould move to stable... > > Regards, > > Patrick > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 11:40 AM Christopher wrote: > > > +1 to that idea. > > > > The releases page[1] says "Apache ZooKeeper 3.9.3 is our current > > release, and 3.8.4 our latest stable release&q

Re: Why do we upgrade logback only on the master branch?

: > > > Yeah, I agree with that, but we can’t leave things here just like that. > > Either we should keep updating the logging libraries on all active branches > > or add the necessary suppression to Owasp. Otherwise the report result will > > be completely meaningless

Re: Why do we upgrade logback only on the master branch?

Yes, that is basically my concern. I commented at https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2290#issuecomment-3145955665 On Fri, Aug 1, 2025, 18:43 Andor Molnar wrote: > Christopher raised concern about it in > > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2162#pullrequestreview-2037135

Re: Question on Persistent Recursive Watch

In the case of reconnection, is it at least guaranteed you'll get some kind of client notification about the connection state, so you can reset any application state that relies on watchers being notified? Like, you may not see a node changed during the disconnected state, but will you at least get

Re: Release 3.10.0?

I would really like to get https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2224 included in whatever the next release is. It has one approval, but has not been merged by a committer yet. On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 1:06 PM Patrick Hunt wrote: > I think doing a release is a good idea, but I'm not sure if a

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Removal of v3 artifact actions on December 5th

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 4:01 PM Andor Molnar wrote: > > Thanks Chris. ...topher (Christopher is preferred, thanks!) Fixed in https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2216 I only updated the master branch. I'm not sure if the other branches are still being maintained, but their Git

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Removal of v3 artifact actions on December 5th

Yes. This is a simple patch to the .github/workflow/ yaml files for GitHub Actions. I'm fixing it for Accumulo side projects now. I can create a PR for ZK also. On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 2:11 PM Andor Molnar wrote: > > Anyone has a clue what to do with this? > > > > > On Mon, 2024-11-25 at 19:33 +

Re: Require permissions to push - New contributor

In order to have write access to the repository, you need to be voted in as a committer by the existing ZooKeeper PMC. If you have been voted in as a committer to Apache ZooKeeper already, and are just trying to figure out how to get your Apache account linked to GitHub, so you have write access to

Re: Tentative Date for ZooKeeper next release

I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't think that issue is important enough to warrant a change in release plans. It's not a bug in ZooKeeper, but a dependency that has a very high degree of compatibility with other versions of that dependency. You can easily work around the issue downstream by si

Re: zookeeper 384 files missing

It sounds like you're asking about a specific vendor packaging, or other downstream packaging of ZooKeeper for a specific platform. The binary tarball that comes from the Apache ZooKeeper group is exactly what you downloaded. If you're looking for something that installs it into a specific layout f

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenTelemetry for Zookeeper?

I think open tracing is a good library to use. Accumulo started using it after HTrace went to the attic. Accumulo also uses ZooKeeper. It remains to be seen if open telemetry will be stable in the long term, since it is relatively new. Lots of projects in an application stack may want to use open

Re: TLS 1.3 support

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:29 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Scott, > > Il Lun 25 Set 2023, 17:20 Scott Guminy ha scritto: > > > Hi, > > > > We have a requirement to support TLS 1.3 starting in January. > > > > I noticed there is a pull request for TLS 1.3 support > >

Re: Zookeeper support to log4j 2.X

ZK 3.7 originally was released with log4j 1.2 (ZK 3.7.0). When ZK 3.7.1 was released, it used reload4j instead of log4j 1.2, because that was the drop-in replacement for log4j 1.2. More work was done on ZK 3.8 to use slf4j, with logback as the default backend. If you want to use log4j 2, it will b

Re: Zookeeper 3.5.9

The error from the first attempt looks like it's because you didn't include the log4j2 jar that provides the 1.2 compatibility API. Honestly, I'm not sure how well that would have worked anyway. Using reload4j is a good idea, but you don't need to update slf4j to 2 to use that. You can just leave

Re: I would like to send a PR related to zookeeper C client

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:50 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Christopher, > > Il giorno dom 4 dic 2022 alle ore 19:34 Christopher > ha scritto: > > > > It might be worth reconsidering the contributing "requirement" to make a > > JIRA ticket. A lot of JI

Re: I would like to send a PR related to zookeeper C client

It might be worth reconsidering the contributing "requirement" to make a JIRA ticket. A lot of JIRA tickets don't have useful information in them anyway... they are just being created because it's required, which is just extra work without benefits. The PR usually has more relevant information and

Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.7.1 candidate 0

FWIW, I think it's a waste of time to cancel the vote on the basis of a known false positive... you can just ignore the false positive and +1 a vote anyway. I don't see this as "pushing it downstream" onto users. Users are likely to not run the CVE check, because it's only useful at a point in time

Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.7.1 candidate 0

FWIW, this is already being tracked on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4510 It's a false positive. I don't think it should hold up a vote. On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:40 AM Szalay-Bekő Máté wrote: > > Hello Mohammad, > > Thanks for the RC! I'm still testing it (so no vote just yet),

Re: ZooKeeper 3.7.1 release plan

I don't understand why that would be a blocker. It is already known that it's a false positive. It shouldn't be considered a blocker. Knowing it's a false positive, PMC members can just vote it through anyway. On Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 02:59 Mohammad arshad wrote: > Hello Everyone > > I could not ma

Re: Due Date for Log4J Upgrade

It should be mentioned that you don't need to wait for a new release of ZooKeeper to upgrade your own installations. You can simply swap out the log4j1.2 jar on your classpath with the reload4j jar. On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 12:41 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > You can update to ZooKeeper 3.8.0 > it

Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL

Regarding the suggestion: "Maybe we can also communicate that we’re going to officially EoL the least recent ZK version every 2 years." If you release new versions less frequently than that, the number of maintenance versions will go to 0 (though, in practice, you wouldn't EOL your current release)

Re: Moving 3.5 to EOL

Apache Accumulo has gone through some similar discussions over the years. What we have come up with is https://accumulo.apache.org/contributor/versioning.html (We avoided "LTS", because we don't provide "support" in the commercial sense, instead using the term "LTM" for long-term maintenance to in

Re: Logback

ookeeper-recipes and zookeeper-contrib projects will > come > > in > > >> the upcoming patch. > > >> > > >> Andor > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On 2022. Jan 19., at 1:45, Ted Dunning > wro

Re: Logback

, 2022 at 6:20 PM Christopher wrote: > Yes. It looks like logback is still actively being developed. 1.2 had a > release in December. The 1.3 line is still alpha and has also seen recent > releases (interestingly, it requires at least Java 9 to build, but will run > on Java 8, which i

Re: Logback

al for logback too, so > correct me if I'm wrong. Logback is current and actively maintained. Is > that correct? > > Andor > > > On Tue, 2022-01-18 at 12:43 -0500, Christopher wrote: > > I do think these are more good reasons to adopt > > something that is

Re: Logback

: > Il giorno mar 18 gen 2022 alle ore 18:09 Andor Molnar > ha scritto: > > > > Thanks for the feedback Enrico / Christopher. > > > > CVEs have been popping up recently for log4j1: > > > > - CVE-2022-23305 Log4j v1 - SQL injection in JDBC Appender &g

Re: Logback

reate more noise in these discussions. So, if the community switches to logback by default, I'll just have to swap out the runtime impl to match my cluster configs at deployment time. > > > Enrico > > > > > Andor > > > > > > > > > On 2022. J

Re: Logback

r Molnar wrote: > > > > Ouch… > > JUL doesn’t have MDC support. > > > > > > > >> On 2022. Jan 12., at 12:48, Andor Molnar wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Chris and Christopher for resolving the licensing issue. > >> > >> Chr

Re: Logback

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-595 > > Chris Nauroth > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:05 AM Christopher wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:17 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for all the feedback and concerns folks.

Re: Logback

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:17 AM Andor Molnar wrote: > > Thanks for all the feedback and concerns folks. I’m trying organize them in > bullet points. Order is random, not importance. > > 1) Licence. I’m not familiar with dual-licensing either. Maybe we need > somebody with better Apache knowledge

Re: Logback

I think it would be a mistake to use the recently reported vulnerability as a basis for migrating to logback. Any dependency can have a vulnerability, and logback is not substantially different. No dependency is going to be guaranteed vulnerability-free. Switching on that basis is a wild goose chas

Re: "Unable to canonicalize address" with Java 17

3.4 was end-of-life before Java 17 was released, so I don't think you can reasonably expect 3.4 to work on Java 17. If you're trying to run on Java 17, you should use one of the currently maintained releases. That said, I think this is a bug that was fixed in 3.5, because something in ZooKeeper wa

Re: ZooKeeper downloads and the new Apache CDN.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 3:37 PM Patrick Hunt wrote: > > I just noticed this Apache post: > https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache-software-foundation-moves-to > I haven't been tracking such infra changes of late. > > However I do notice that our download page is impacted: > https://zooke

Re: FYI: Snyk JVM Ecosystem Report 2021

The report says that over 60% of developers use Java 11 in *production*. That's higher than I would have expected. I figured most production users were still running 8. Nevertheless, if that many are using 11 in production, I can imagine the number of developers planning for 11 or higher in their *

Re: Removing Java 11 CI job

Cool. Go ahead. I have not tested it on anything other than the master branch, though. On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 10:03 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Perfect! > I have approved the patch > > I would like to commit it ASAP > > Enrico > > Il giorno mar 16 feb 2021 alle

Re: Removing Java 11 CI job

I changed the surefire-forkCount to 1, instead of 1C in https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1606 and the "Address in use" error goes away, and tests pass on Java 11. I saw it pass once in my branch. It is currently running in the PR, and if it completes, I recommend making that change, instead

Re: Java 11 tests are very flaky on GitHub Actions

test: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1595 On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:48 AM Christopher wrote: > > These tests are flaky on JDK8, too, when I tried. It's my > understanding that's why they were not being run on Travis previously > (still aren't). Most of the tests

Re: Java 11 tests are very flaky on GitHub Actions

These tests are flaky on JDK8, too, when I tried. It's my understanding that's why they were not being run on Travis previously (still aren't). Most of the tests that I see failing are due to the "Address already in use" bind error. This may be more likely in a virtualized environment like GitHub A

JIRA spammer

probably need to actually close and/or delete the issues, since I do not have access. Alternatively, you can ask INFRA to delete them for you. Thanks, Christopher

Re: Pull Request Validation on GitHub Actions (ZOOKEEPER-3973)

then by running tests parallel on 4 threads. > > > > There must be some reason for that Github builds are much more unstable. > > Do they fail always with the same error? > > > > Andor > > > > > > > >> On 2021. Jan 15., at 4:18, Christopher

Re: Pull Request Validation on GitHub Actions (ZOOKEEPER-3973)

zookeeper-multi-branch-build/ > > I suspect some of these flaky Java test cases probably fail on Jenkins a lot, too. If they can be tweaked to run more reliably in GitHub Actions, I bet the Jenkins precommit jobs would also pass more reliably, too. > Andor > > > > On Sun, 2020-11-0

Re: 3.7.0: JDK 11 vs. JDK 8 (was: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Require JDK 11 to build for 3.7)

; Andor just reminded me of this JDK 11 vs. 8 discussion, for which we did > > not reach a resolution. Do we want to make a move for the 3.7.0 release? > > > > The original proposal, by Christopher, can be found here: > > > > > > > https://mail-archiv

[jira] [Created] (ZOOKEEPER-3987) Build failures when running surefire tests concurrently due to bind address already in use

Christopher Tubbs created ZOOKEEPER-3987: Summary: Build failures when running surefire tests concurrently due to bind address already in use Key: ZOOKEEPER-3987 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse

Re: Pull Request Validation on GitHub Actions (ZOOKEEPER-3973)

0 at 12:00 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Hello, > Christopher send a patch that enabled PR validation in GitHub Actions [1] > > I would like to start a discussion and explain what's going on. > I was talking with Andor about the lack of the "magic words" on Pull &

[jira] [Created] (ZOOKEEPER-3983) C client test suite hangs forever 'sss' is configured in /etc/nsswitch.conf

Christopher Tubbs created ZOOKEEPER-3983: Summary: C client test suite hangs forever 'sss' is configured in /etc/nsswitch.conf Key: ZOOKEEPER-3983 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOK

Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Require JDK 11 to build for 3.7

n could even be bumped to 4.0. If this were to come to a VOTE by the PMC, in order to make a final decision, I would recommend they vote on option 3, and then if that fails, vote on option 1, and if that fails, keep things the way they are (because option 2 is more work). Christopher P.S. as for

Re: [DISCUSS] Log4j2 in ZooKeeper

lso don't think it's a big burden to migrate to the new config file format(s) that are available with log4j2 when a user upgrades ZK. For what it's worth, If ZK is ready to make a clean break and drop all log4j v1 stuffs (including ripping out the JMX stuff that is holding it back from being pure slf4j), then I am willing to help with migrating config files and pom.xml dependencies. Christopher

Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Require JDK 11 to build for 3.7

d to keep the build tooling up to date. If the ZK project isn't ready to move to Java 11 for 3.7.0, not even for the build requirement, then when will it be ready (for either the build or runtime)? Has that already been discussed and decided by this project's PMC in a previous thread on the mailing lists? If so, where? Regards, Christopher

[DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] Require JDK 11 to build for 3.7

they continue to have patch versions released. What do you think? Kind Regards, Christopher

Re: Question about checkstyle execution

gt; > Enrico > > Il Ven 16 Ott 2020, 15:35 Christopher ha scritto: > > > What about apache-rat and spotbugs? Should those execute by default also? > > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 9:29 AM Enrico Olivelli > > wrote: > > > > > > Christopher, >

[jira] [Created] (ZOOKEEPER-3974) Generated build files from zookeeper-client-c should be in target/ directory

Christopher Tubbs created ZOOKEEPER-3974: Summary: Generated build files from zookeeper-client-c should be in target/ directory Key: ZOOKEEPER-3974 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER

Re: Question about checkstyle execution

What about apache-rat and spotbugs? Should those execute by default also? On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 9:29 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Christopher, > I think it is only a leftover of the adoption of checkstyle. > > Feel free to send a patch and activate it by default > > >

Question about checkstyle execution

, without unnecessary configuration. Thanks, Christopher

[jira] [Created] (ZOOKEEPER-3973) Create configuration files GitHub Actions CI builds

Christopher Tubbs created ZOOKEEPER-3973: Summary: Create configuration files GitHub Actions CI builds Key: ZOOKEEPER-3973 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3973 Project

Re: Re: hacktoberfest

gt; > > > - Original Message - > From: Christopher > To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > Subject: Re: hacktoberfest > Date: 2020-10-08 05:03 > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:12 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > > > Il Mer 7 Ott 2020, 21:02 Christopher ha

Re: hacktoberfest

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:12 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Il Mer 7 Ott 2020, 21:02 Christopher ha scritto: > > > I created https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1489 > > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3962) > > > Thank you The sooner

Re: hacktoberfest

I created https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1489 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3962) This should add the hacktoberfest label to the github repo. On a related note: I've noticed that a lot of people just do pull requests, but this project's committers are pretty strict ab

[jira] [Created] (ZOOKEEPER-3962) Create .asf.yaml file for ZooKeeper repo

Christopher Tubbs created ZOOKEEPER-3962: Summary: Create .asf.yaml file for ZooKeeper repo Key: ZOOKEEPER-3962 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3962 Project: ZooKeeper

Re: Creating a public fork of ZooKeeper

Hi Hunter, A public fork is certainly an option under the Apache License. Many contributors maintain their own public forks on GitHub to enable them to contribute via a pull request on GitHub. While most contributors don't build and reproduce artifacts from their forks, they could do so, in theory

Re: jUnit5 migration review

Even if people are using ZK test code downstream, I would argue they do so at their own risk. I don't think ZK, as a project, should treat its test code or test dependencies as though they were stable APIs suitable for downstream to rely on. That would be too constraining for ZK's own development.

Re: An official API for starting ZooKeeper from a Java program

In my experience, the current ZooKeeperServerMain is adequate for this. I currently wrap that for my (unofficial) zookeeper-maven-plugin project (https://github.com/revelc/zookeeper-maven-plugin). I'm curious what additional benefits having a new API would add that can't be done with the current on

Re: Need Help with Maven Build

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:58 AM Szalay-Bekő Máté wrote: > > I saw this problem a few times (usually when I build from IntelliJ console, > after I changed to a different git branch). > > My solution is usually: > git clean -xdf > git reset --hard > mvn clean > > after these steps usually "mvn clean

Re: Is there a slack channel to ask about zookeeper internals and generally learning about ZooKeeper

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:46 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Il Mer 13 Mag 2020, 20:37 Christopher ha scritto: > > > Anybody can join the Slack. It is not exclusively for ASF committers. > > The link is: https://s.apache.org/slack-invite > > > I thought it was for i

Re: Is there a slack channel to ask about zookeeper internals and generally learning about ZooKeeper

Anybody can join the Slack. It is not exclusively for ASF committers. The link is: https://s.apache.org/slack-invite On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:49 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > We are mostly using the mailing list. > We have a gitter channel but it is not very active. > We have a slack channel bu

Re: Broken download page for ZK 3.6.1 binaries ?

It works for me. I suspect one of the mirrors was just slower to update than the others, so you got a bad link. If it happens again, just try a different mirror. On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:06 PM tison wrote: > > Hi Enrico, > > Could you describe a bit more? Things look well on my env. > > Links in

Re: Backporting practices

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:40 AM Szalay-Bekő Máté wrote: > > In general I agree. > > But I am a bit hesitant here: > > > branch-3.6: > > - everything, except new features > > Sometimes it is hard to distinguish "new features" and "improvements". I > think this should be decided on a case-by-case bas

Re: Jenkins PreCommit job failing

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:09 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Il Mer 6 Mag 2020, 14:59 Szalay-Bekő Máté ha > scritto: > > > Hello Guys, > > > > I noticed that the following jenkins job always fails on PRs on branch-3.6 > > or master: > > https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-github-pr-bui

Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.6.1 candidate 1

Looks like I replied at the same time as you. :) Extending the timeout may work... but tests that use Thread.sleep() to wait for an expected condition are fragile. The current code even labels the strategy as "TODO hack". It would be better to loop and re-check for the expected condition, until som

Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.6.1 candidate 1

The FileChangeWatcherTest failure is almost certainly caused by the removal of the use of com.sun.nio.file.SensitivityWatchEventModifier. This was done as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3215 / https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3739 and fixes the cross-compila

Re: No tag for 3.6.0?

ow, `git remote update` (or `git fetch --all`) pulls down tags for these orphaned commits, even if they don't exist in a branch. Hopefully this information is useful to others who are confused why they aren't fetching tags after they are released. On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:34 AM Christo

Voting best practices (Was: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.6.1 candidate 1)

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:24 AM Enrico Olivelli 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

Re: Handle Java 9/11 additions of covariant return types to java.nio.ByteBuffer methods

Option 2 was implemented by me already as part of my pull request for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3739 This change was applied to 3.6.1 and 3.7.0. If this didn't fix it, I'd have to look into it further. But, the option 1 doesn't look too bad to me. On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:1

Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.6.1 candidate 1

+1 (non-binding); overall, looks great! Good: * Source tarball matches tag (git sha1 at 104dcb3e3fb464b30c5186d229e00af9f332524b) * Release tag includes all commits from branch-3.6 (at e64a74fabafeb3b20109014149beb3ebd6a48be7) * SHA512 checksums match tarballs: 1c5cb4d9886fae41bf244a446dd874b73

Re: Branch-36 is broken - fatjar - WAS Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.6.1 candidate 0

t; Il giorno sab 18 apr 2020 alle ore 12:42 Enrico Olivelli < > > eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > Thank you Christopher > > > > > > We are iterating over #1323. > > > I think we can finish the work today > > > > > > Enrico &

[jira] [Created] (ZOOKEEPER-3801) Fix Jenkins link in pom

Christopher Tubbs created ZOOKEEPER-3801: Summary: Fix Jenkins link in pom Key: ZOOKEEPER-3801 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-3801 Project: ZooKeeper Issue Type

Re: Branch-36 is broken - fatjar - WAS Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.6.1 candidate 0

gt; > I am preparing a fix > > > > Enrico > > > > Il giorno sab 18 apr 2020 alle ore 07:08 Enrico Olivelli < > > eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > >> > >> > >> Il Ven 17 Apr 2020, 08:50 Enrico Olivelli ha > >> s

Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.6.1 candidate 0

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:52 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Christopher, > answers inline. > Thank you for testing ! > > Il giorno gio 16 apr 2020 alle ore 15:12 Christopher > ha scritto: > > > -0 (non-binding), I did find some problems that prevent some maven > &

Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.6.1 candidate 0

-0 (non-binding), I did find some problems that prevent some maven profiles, including fatjar, from being activated, among other minor issues; nothing too serious, but the inability to run the fatjar profile might be a blocker for some, as might be the missing patch for ipv6 comparisons in the C cl

Re: Request For Review: ZOOKEEPER-3579

I looked at it, and it seemed reasonable. My review isn't binding, though. My understanding is that you still need another committer to approve it. On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 2:52 AM tison wrote: > > Hi ZK Devs, > > A few months ago I create a PR for gracefully handling null default > watcher[1]. Af

Re: Contribs as separate git repos

This discussion has gone in a few directions, and I'm not really sure where to go from here. I don't know what actionable items I can take. The things people are suggesting stay, rather than move out, are things I would argue are perfect to move out. The Perl and Python language bindings, for exam

Re: No tag for 3.6.0?

at does seem odd, perhaps it's related to having > multiple remotes? > > Regards, > > Patrick > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:38 PM Christopher wrote: > > > This was a weird client-side error with git... not sure why it wasn't > > working, but `git remot

Re: Cutting 3.6.1 HEADS UP !

: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/1321 On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 11:03 PM Christopher wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 12:39 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > > > Christopher > > Maybe with your commit a93ff0fe631d1c96ee056a79e3c16535ab33c794 we have > > bro

Re: Cutting 3.6.1 HEADS UP !

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 12:39 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Christopher > Maybe with your commit a93ff0fe631d1c96ee056a79e3c16535ab33c794 we have > broken the source release tarball. Possibly. I patched 3.7/master. I wasn't involved in the backport to 3.6 and did not test it th

Re: No tag for 3.6.0?

4, 2020 at 9:44 PM Patrick Hunt wrote: > > Christopher - I believe it's release-3.6.0 - I have it from either gh or > apache gitbox, eg: > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/tree/release-3.6.0 > > Patrick > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:26 PM Christopher wrote: > >

No tag for 3.6.0?

Hi ZK Devs, I don't see a tag for 3.6.0 in git. Is there one available that hasn't been pushed? Thanks, Christopher

  1   2   >