zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norbert Kalmar <nkal...@cloudera.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Time to think about a 3.6.0 release?
Date Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:16:44 GMT
Hi Fangmin,

I checked all 3 PRs, looks like they pretty much reviewed, some minor
questions remain.
But we have 302 tickets open where fixVersion is 3.6.0, good news is only 1
blocker (ZOOKEEPER-2136), which already has a patch. I'll see that this
blocker gets committed.
There is also 9 critical for 3.6.0.

Regards,
Norbert



On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:27 AM Fangmin Lv <lvfangmin@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's great to have a 3.6.0 release, currently all the FB contributed
> features has been running inside FB for more than a month, so it
> should be stable enough for community to use.
>
> Also I agreed with Patrick's point to review all flags and consider to turn
> on by default.
>
> For the pending PRs, the following might be higher priority and would be
> nice to include in the 3.6.0 release:
>
> * ZOOKEEPER-3356: Implement advanced Netty flow control based on feedback
> from ZK to avoid OOM issue
> * ZOOKEEPER-3145: Avoid watch missing issue due to stale pzxid when
> replaying CloseSession txn with fuzzy snapshot
> * ZOOKEEPER-3240: Close socket on Learner shutdown to avoid dangling socket
>
> Thanks,
> Fangmin
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 9:21 AM Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Good idea. Agree on including anything we've postponed to a new cycle -
> the
> > patch from mapr is an obvious one to consider.
> >
> > We should also look at things we've disabled by default and consider
> > whether we can turn them on by default. If not why not, and what can we
> do
> > to fix this in a subsequent release.
> >
> > Have we deprecated anything that we should now remove?
> >
> > Also a good time to review the state of Java versions and make changes
> wrt
> > supported versions and so forth.
> >
> > There was a proposal to remove contribs, or at least consider the ones
> that
> > are still valuable vs moving some out. We should do that as well.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 9:02 AM Jordan Zimmerman <
> > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Persistent/Recursive watches: I’m willing to rebase, etc if there’s
> > > confidence it will be merged.
> > >
> > > ====================
> > > Jordan Zimmerman
> > >
> > > > On Jun 15, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Andor Molnar
> <andor@cloudera.com.invalid
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Enrico!
> > > >
> > > > Very good point, I entirely support the idea.
> > > >
> > > > Question to Friends@Facebook and Twitter contributors: how many
> > > outstanding
> > > > Jiras/PRs do you have which you would like to see in 3.6?
> > > >
> > > > I'd also like to highlight the long outstanding PR from Mapr:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/730
> > > >
> > > > And some great new features which are still looking for to be merged:
> > > > - Persistent recursive watchers:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/136
> > > > - Enforce client auth: https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/118
> > > > - Slow operation log
> > > > - Jetty port unification
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Andor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Enrico Olivelli <
> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Zookeepers !
> > > >> I checked on JIRA and it seems that master in good shape, no real
> > > blockers
> > > >> that mine the stability of the code.
> > > >>
> > > >> We have plenty of cool pull requests almost ready to be merged
> (mostly
> > > from
> > > >> Facebook friends and Twitter fork)
> > > >>
> > > >> Current master branch is full of great features in respect to 3.5.
> > > >>
> > > >> AFAIK There is no incompatibility with 3.5 so it is okay to stay
> with
> > > >> 3.6.0, although I think that there is so much stuff to legit a
> switch
> > to
> > > >> 4.0.0 (but we can reserve such bump for the time we will separate
> the
> > > java
> > > >> client and create a minimal compatibility breakage)
> > > >>
> > > >> Thoughts?
> > > >>
> > > >> Enrico
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

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