zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rakesh Radhakrishnan <rakeshr.apa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.1-alpha candidate 0
Date Sat, 02 May 2015 10:32:27 GMT
Hi,

It looks like we have couple of jira issues ready to check in to the
branch-3.5 like,
ZOOKEEPER-2174, ZOOKEEPER-2062 etc

But these are not blockers for 3.5.1 release, should we wait for the 3.5.1
release and then push/commit these kinda issues into the project ?

FYI: Presently we have only two issues marked for 3.5.1 ->
ZOOKEEPER-2171(required) and ZOOKEEPER-2124.


Thanks & Regards,
Rakesh


On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Michi Mutsuzaki <mutsuzaki@gmail.com>
wrote:

> You can go a head and check it in.
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Camille Fournier <camille@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Is it a problem if I put ZOOKEEPER-2173 into the 3.5 branch before this
> > release? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2173
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <
> rgs@itevenworks.net
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Michi,
> >>
> >> On 26 April 2015 at 14:44, Michi Mutsuzaki <mutsuzaki@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thank you everybody for voting. We are *not* releasing this candidate.
> >> > There are 2 things to fix:
> >> >
> >> > - Update winconfig.h and the notice file (Michi)
> >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2171 (Raul?)
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'll get to  ZK-2171 tomorrow.
> >>
> >>
> >> -rgs
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > I'll create another candidate once these 2 issues are fixed.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Michi Mutsuzaki <
> mutsuzaki@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > Thanks Pat, I'll update winconfig.h and the notice file.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >> Looks like version strings are in src/c/include/winconfig.h that
> need
> >> > to be
> >> > >> updated. They are still listed as 3.5.0.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think you'll need to spin a new RC to address this.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> You might update the notice file to include 2015 at the same time
> >> (not a
> >> > >> blocker typically though).
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Patrick
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <
> >> > rgs@itevenworks.net
> >> > >>> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> On 20 April 2015 at 13:03, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <
> >> rgs@itevenworks.net
> >> > >
> >> > >>> wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> > -1, alas.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > I think ZOOKEEPER-1506 could be problematic for some
setups.
> After
> >> a
> >> > >>> > couple of elections with a cluster of 5 participants
and one
> >> > observer, I
> >> > >>> > end up with a participant that's unable to find the leader
> because
> >> it
> >> > >>> does
> >> > >>> > a reverse lookup (IP -> hostname) and ends up with
a bogus
> hostname
> >> > that
> >> > >>> it
> >> > >>> > can't resolve:
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > https://gist.github.com/rgs1/d11822799fdbbfa5d5f2
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > I don't think the reverse lookup from QuorumCnxManager
was done
> >> > before,
> >> > >>> > nor that it should be done. So it could cause issues
in places
> >> where
> >> > >>> > reverse lookups aren't fully working. Surely, we could
argue
> that
> >> > it's a
> >> > >>> > DNS setup issue but I think we should avoid the extra
lookup if
> >> > possible.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > I'll dig in a bit deeper and try to come with a deterministic
> >> repro.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Commented on ZOOKEEPER-1506: turns out that my issue was with
> reverse
> >> > >>> lookup calls that were not introduced by that patch. They
seem to
> >> have
> >> > been
> >> > >>> introduced by ZOOKEEPER-107, so they have been around for
a while.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> The tl;dr is that if your resolvers give you bad reverse names,
> >> you'll
> >> > have
> >> > >>> issues. It would nice to avoid these reverse lookups, so I
> created:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2171
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> After sorting this issue, I tested the following:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> * many elections (which look quick)
> >> > >>> * creating and deleting ephemerals in a loop (via zk-shell)
> >> > >>> * phunt's smoke test scripts (comparable results to 3.5.0)
> >> > >>> * partitioning and unpartioning an attached observer
> >> > >>> * use zktraffic's fle-dump & zab-dump to inspect if there
were any
> >> > bogus
> >> > >>> FLE votes or ZAB messages [0]
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> All of this looks good! So +1 now :-)
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> -rgs
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> p.s.: fwiw, here's my test setup:
> http://itevenworks.net/zk-releases
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> [0] https://github.com/twitter/zktraffic
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > -rgs
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > On 12 April 2015 at 14:58, Michi Mutsuzaki <
> michi@cs.stanford.edu>
> >> > >>> wrote:
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >> This is a release candidate for 3.5.1-alpha. The
full release
> >> notes
> >> > is
> >> > >>> >> available at:
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310801&version=12326786
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >> *** Please download, test and vote by April 25th
2015, 23:59
> >> UTC+0.
> >> > ***
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >> Source files:
> >> > >>> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~michim/zookeeper-3.5.1-alpha-candidate-0/
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >> Maven staging repo:
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/org/apache/zookeeper/zookeeper/3.5.1-alpha/
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >> The tag to be voted upon:
> >> > >>> >>
> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/zookeeper/tags/release-3.5.1-rc0/
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >> ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use
to sign the
> >> > release:
> >> > >>> >> http://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >> Should we release this candidate?
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >> --Michi
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message