You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@zookeeper.apache.org by Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net> on 2015/05/01 02:51:02 UTC
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Hi all,
I went over all the tickets and I think we should be able to close them
over the next week:
http://goo.gl/6Jjtj1
After that, I'll cut an RC if that sounds reasonable. Thanks!
-rgs
On 21 April 2015 at 21:22, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> That's always going to be the case. There will be some changes you know
> about, and some that you don't. The job of the release manager is to cut
> the release via the release process (well documented steps). You don't
> necessarily know about every change - otw we'd never get out releases. ;-)
>
> Patrick
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Hongchao Deng <fe...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > By "strange" I mean "not familiar with" :)
> > - Hongchao Deng
> >
> > > Subject: Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
> > > From: fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.INVALID
> > > Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 17:26:34 +0100
> > > To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
> > >
> > > What's strange about the issues resolved?
> > >
> > > -Flavio
> > >
> > > > On 18 Apr 2015, at 20:19, Hongchao Deng <fe...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > TBH the commits from 3.4.6 to latest look a little strange to me. I
> > don't think I could take that responsibility. I would like to do the RM
> job
> > for 3.5.2 :)
> > > > - Hongchao Deng
> > > >
> > > >> From: phunt@apache.org
> > > >> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:30:13 -0700
> > > >> Subject: Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
> > > >> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org; fpjunqueira@yahoo.com
> > > >>
> > > >> One of our new committers perhaps? Hongchao or Raul interested?
> > > >>
> > > >> Patrick
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Flavio Junqueira <
> > > >> fpjunqueira@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I have volunteered to RM 3.4.7, but I'm more than happy to pass if
> > anyone
> > > >>> else wants to do a release.
> > > >>> -Flavio
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Friday, April 17, 2015 8:22 AM, Michi Mutsuzaki <
> > > >>> mutsuzaki@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi Konstantin,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, I'd like us to start preparing for 3.4.7 soon. We have 36 out
> of
> > > >>> 44 issues resolved. Any volunteer to manage the 3.4.7 release? I'd
> > > >>> like to get more committers to get familiarized with the release
> > > >>> process.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> cos@apache.org>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> Hello ZK team!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> We are looking into upgrading ZK to 3.4.6 in the coming Bigtop 1.0
> > > >>> release.
> > > >>>> However, as expressed in BIGTOP-1468, we are concerned a bit about
> > > >>> deviating
> > > >>>> from 'official release only' policy we had so far. But as
> explained
> > > >>> above,
> > > >>>> there are a few issues that are we need to address if we want to
> > switch:
> > > >>>> ZOOKEEPER-1911
> > > >>>> ZOOKEEPER-2064
> > > >>>> ZOOKEEPER-1506 (potentially)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I was wondering if you guys are planning on releasing 3.4.7 soon,
> > that
> > > >>> will
> > > >>>> hopefully address at least the top two issues? I am not subscribed
> > to
> > > >>>> dev@zookeeper.a.o so I'd appreciate if you can include
> > dev@bigtop.a.o
> > > >>> into
> > > >>>> your reply as well.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks in advance!
> > > >>>> Cos
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>.
On 22 October 2015 at 14:31, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
> If you have a patch by the end of today for ZK-1029, I'll review it before
> you wake up tomorrow.
>
Flavio fixed this one, so we are good to go!
I will punt everything else to 3.4.8 and cut an RC afterwards :-) Thanks!
-rgs
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org>.
If you have a patch by the end of today for ZK-1029, I'll review it before you wake up tomorrow.
-Flavio
> On 22 Oct 2015, at 22:27, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net> wrote:
>
> On 22 October 2015 at 14:07, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Raul,
>>
>> I'd need some time to dig into ZK-832, but from the description I don't
>> think it is a blocker. As I understand this is happening because the server
>> lost persistent state, and this is isn't a common scenario in a replicated
>> deployment. I'm fine with downgrading it from blocker to major/critical.
>>
>> As for ZK-1029, if we know what the problem is, would be difficult to
>> provide a patch?
>>
>
> Sure, we can rework the cleanup path in zookeeper_init(). I just wanted to
> note that it's not what's causing pain for the Mesos project (which looked
> very bad at first), so we shouldn't block on it.
>
> But you are right, it shouldn't be a big patch. I'll propose one later
> today. Hopefully we can have an RC later this week :-)
>
>
> -rgs
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>.
On 22 October 2015 at 14:07, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Raul,
>
> I'd need some time to dig into ZK-832, but from the description I don't
> think it is a blocker. As I understand this is happening because the server
> lost persistent state, and this is isn't a common scenario in a replicated
> deployment. I'm fine with downgrading it from blocker to major/critical.
>
> As for ZK-1029, if we know what the problem is, would be difficult to
> provide a patch?
>
Sure, we can rework the cleanup path in zookeeper_init(). I just wanted to
note that it's not what's causing pain for the Mesos project (which looked
very bad at first), so we shouldn't block on it.
But you are right, it shouldn't be a big patch. I'll propose one later
today. Hopefully we can have an RC later this week :-)
-rgs
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Rakesh Radhakrishnan <ra...@gmail.com>.
>>>>>I'd need some time to dig into ZK-832, but from the description I
don't think it is a blocker.
Agreed, its not a blocker for 3.4.7 release. This is not a common scenario,
will wait to see more consensus on the proposed algorithm and then push it
in.
-Rakesh
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Raul,
>
> I'd need some time to dig into ZK-832, but from the description I don't
> think it is a blocker. As I understand this is happening because the server
> lost persistent state, and this is isn't a common scenario in a replicated
> deployment. I'm fine with downgrading it from blocker to major/critical.
>
> As for ZK-1029, if we know what the problem is, would be difficult to
> provide a patch?
>
> -Flavio
>
> > On 22 Oct 2015, at 21:57, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 5 October 2015 at 11:01, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rgs@itevenworks.net
> <ma...@itevenworks.net>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 8 September 2015 at 23:15, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <
> rgs@itevenworks.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 23 August 2015 at 14:51, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <
> rgs@itevenworks.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 23 August 2015 at 14:44, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <
> rgs@itevenworks.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sorry about dropping the ball here. So going over the unresolved
> >>>>> issues, I think these ones would be nice to tackle before cutting an
> RC:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-1833: fix windows build (one sub-task still opened:
> >>>>> ZOOKEEPER-1868)
> >>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-1029: C client bug in zookeeper_init (if bad hostname is
> >>>>> given)
> >>>>> (no one has this assigned, I'll try to get a patch out by tomorrow)
> >>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-832: Invalid session id causes infinite loop during
> >>>>> automatic reconnect
> >>>>> (I've asked Rakesh if can wrap it up, if anyone else can help that
> >>>>> would be great)
> >>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-2033: zookeeper follower fails to start after a restart
> >>>>> immediately following a new epoch
> >>>>> (pinged Flavio to get some feedback)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Everything else can probably be punted for 3.4.8, unless anyone
> >>>>> disagrees.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> One more, which needs to be back-ported from trunk:
> >>>>
> >>>> ZOOKEEPER-1506: Re-try DNS hostname -> IP resolution if node
> connection
> >>>> fails
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> There's been some movement in the bug tracker, but ZOOKEEPER-1506 and
> ZOOKEEPER-832
> >>> still need reviews (hopefully tomorrow, unless someone can beat me to
> it)
> >>> and I still need to get to ZOOKEEPER-1029.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So ZOOKEEPER-1506 is done. Still waiting on ZOOKEEPER-832 and I am
> hoping
> >> to finally get to ZOOKEEPER-1029 this week (unless someone beats me to
> it,
> >> which would be much appreciated).
> >>
> >
> >
> > Circling back, it turns out that ZOOKEEPER-1029 is actually not the
> cause
> > for MESOS-2186. The fact that we are not properly checking if the locks
> > have been initialized before trying to get the locks is still wrong, but
> > ignoring the return codes from pthread_cond_broadcast and
> > pthread_mutex_lock (EINVAL) is not causing the reported crashers.
> >
> > I propose we punt ZOOKEEPER-1029 and ZOOKEEPER-832 for 3.4.8, so that we
> > can keep moving with the release candidate.
> >
> > Any objections?
> >
> >
> > -rgs
>
>
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org>.
Raul,
I'd need some time to dig into ZK-832, but from the description I don't think it is a blocker. As I understand this is happening because the server lost persistent state, and this is isn't a common scenario in a replicated deployment. I'm fine with downgrading it from blocker to major/critical.
As for ZK-1029, if we know what the problem is, would be difficult to provide a patch?
-Flavio
> On 22 Oct 2015, at 21:57, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net> wrote:
>
> On 5 October 2015 at 11:01, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rgs@itevenworks.net <ma...@itevenworks.net>>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8 September 2015 at 23:15, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 23 August 2015 at 14:51, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23 August 2015 at 14:44, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry about dropping the ball here. So going over the unresolved
>>>>> issues, I think these ones would be nice to tackle before cutting an RC:
>>>>>
>>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-1833: fix windows build (one sub-task still opened:
>>>>> ZOOKEEPER-1868)
>>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-1029: C client bug in zookeeper_init (if bad hostname is
>>>>> given)
>>>>> (no one has this assigned, I'll try to get a patch out by tomorrow)
>>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-832: Invalid session id causes infinite loop during
>>>>> automatic reconnect
>>>>> (I've asked Rakesh if can wrap it up, if anyone else can help that
>>>>> would be great)
>>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-2033: zookeeper follower fails to start after a restart
>>>>> immediately following a new epoch
>>>>> (pinged Flavio to get some feedback)
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything else can probably be punted for 3.4.8, unless anyone
>>>>> disagrees.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One more, which needs to be back-ported from trunk:
>>>>
>>>> ZOOKEEPER-1506: Re-try DNS hostname -> IP resolution if node connection
>>>> fails
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's been some movement in the bug tracker, but ZOOKEEPER-1506 and ZOOKEEPER-832
>>> still need reviews (hopefully tomorrow, unless someone can beat me to it)
>>> and I still need to get to ZOOKEEPER-1029.
>>>
>>
>> So ZOOKEEPER-1506 is done. Still waiting on ZOOKEEPER-832 and I am hoping
>> to finally get to ZOOKEEPER-1029 this week (unless someone beats me to it,
>> which would be much appreciated).
>>
>
>
> Circling back, it turns out that ZOOKEEPER-1029 is actually not the cause
> for MESOS-2186. The fact that we are not properly checking if the locks
> have been initialized before trying to get the locks is still wrong, but
> ignoring the return codes from pthread_cond_broadcast and
> pthread_mutex_lock (EINVAL) is not causing the reported crashers.
>
> I propose we punt ZOOKEEPER-1029 and ZOOKEEPER-832 for 3.4.8, so that we
> can keep moving with the release candidate.
>
> Any objections?
>
>
> -rgs
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>.
On 5 October 2015 at 11:01, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
wrote:
> On 8 September 2015 at 23:15, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 23 August 2015 at 14:51, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 August 2015 at 14:44, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> sorry about dropping the ball here. So going over the unresolved
>>>> issues, I think these ones would be nice to tackle before cutting an RC:
>>>>
>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-1833: fix windows build (one sub-task still opened:
>>>> ZOOKEEPER-1868)
>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-1029: C client bug in zookeeper_init (if bad hostname is
>>>> given)
>>>> (no one has this assigned, I'll try to get a patch out by tomorrow)
>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-832: Invalid session id causes infinite loop during
>>>> automatic reconnect
>>>> (I've asked Rakesh if can wrap it up, if anyone else can help that
>>>> would be great)
>>>> * ZOOKEEPER-2033: zookeeper follower fails to start after a restart
>>>> immediately following a new epoch
>>>> (pinged Flavio to get some feedback)
>>>>
>>>> Everything else can probably be punted for 3.4.8, unless anyone
>>>> disagrees.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One more, which needs to be back-ported from trunk:
>>>
>>> ZOOKEEPER-1506: Re-try DNS hostname -> IP resolution if node connection
>>> fails
>>>
>>
>> There's been some movement in the bug tracker, but ZOOKEEPER-1506 and ZOOKEEPER-832
>> still need reviews (hopefully tomorrow, unless someone can beat me to it)
>> and I still need to get to ZOOKEEPER-1029.
>>
>
> So ZOOKEEPER-1506 is done. Still waiting on ZOOKEEPER-832 and I am hoping
> to finally get to ZOOKEEPER-1029 this week (unless someone beats me to it,
> which would be much appreciated).
>
Circling back, it turns out that ZOOKEEPER-1029 is actually not the cause
for MESOS-2186. The fact that we are not properly checking if the locks
have been initialized before trying to get the locks is still wrong, but
ignoring the return codes from pthread_cond_broadcast and
pthread_mutex_lock (EINVAL) is not causing the reported crashers.
I propose we punt ZOOKEEPER-1029 and ZOOKEEPER-832 for 3.4.8, so that we
can keep moving with the release candidate.
Any objections?
-rgs
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>.
On 8 September 2015 at 23:15, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23 August 2015 at 14:51, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 23 August 2015 at 14:44, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> sorry about dropping the ball here. So going over the unresolved issues,
>>> I think these ones would be nice to tackle before cutting an RC:
>>>
>>> * ZOOKEEPER-1833: fix windows build (one sub-task still opened:
>>> ZOOKEEPER-1868)
>>> * ZOOKEEPER-1029: C client bug in zookeeper_init (if bad hostname is
>>> given)
>>> (no one has this assigned, I'll try to get a patch out by tomorrow)
>>> * ZOOKEEPER-832: Invalid session id causes infinite loop during
>>> automatic reconnect
>>> (I've asked Rakesh if can wrap it up, if anyone else can help that
>>> would be great)
>>> * ZOOKEEPER-2033: zookeeper follower fails to start after a restart
>>> immediately following a new epoch
>>> (pinged Flavio to get some feedback)
>>>
>>> Everything else can probably be punted for 3.4.8, unless anyone
>>> disagrees.
>>>
>>
>> One more, which needs to be back-ported from trunk:
>>
>> ZOOKEEPER-1506: Re-try DNS hostname -> IP resolution if node connection
>> fails
>>
>
> There's been some movement in the bug tracker, but ZOOKEEPER-1506 and ZOOKEEPER-832
> still need reviews (hopefully tomorrow, unless someone can beat me to it)
> and I still need to get to ZOOKEEPER-1029.
>
So ZOOKEEPER-1506 is done. Still waiting on ZOOKEEPER-832 and I am hoping
to finally get to ZOOKEEPER-1029 this week (unless someone beats me to it,
which would be much appreciated).
-rgs
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>.
Hi,
On 23 August 2015 at 14:51, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
wrote:
> On 23 August 2015 at 14:44, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> sorry about dropping the ball here. So going over the unresolved issues,
>> I think these ones would be nice to tackle before cutting an RC:
>>
>> * ZOOKEEPER-1833: fix windows build (one sub-task still opened:
>> ZOOKEEPER-1868)
>> * ZOOKEEPER-1029: C client bug in zookeeper_init (if bad hostname is
>> given)
>> (no one has this assigned, I'll try to get a patch out by tomorrow)
>> * ZOOKEEPER-832: Invalid session id causes infinite loop during automatic
>> reconnect
>> (I've asked Rakesh if can wrap it up, if anyone else can help that
>> would be great)
>> * ZOOKEEPER-2033: zookeeper follower fails to start after a restart
>> immediately following a new epoch
>> (pinged Flavio to get some feedback)
>>
>> Everything else can probably be punted for 3.4.8, unless anyone disagrees.
>>
>
> One more, which needs to be back-ported from trunk:
>
> ZOOKEEPER-1506: Re-try DNS hostname -> IP resolution if node connection
> fails
>
There's been some movement in the bug tracker, but ZOOKEEPER-1506 and
ZOOKEEPER-832
still need reviews (hopefully tomorrow, unless someone can beat me to it)
and I still need to get to ZOOKEEPER-1029.
-rgs
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>.
On 23 August 2015 at 14:44, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> sorry about dropping the ball here. So going over the unresolved issues, I
> think these ones would be nice to tackle before cutting an RC:
>
> * ZOOKEEPER-1833: fix windows build (one sub-task still opened:
> ZOOKEEPER-1868)
> * ZOOKEEPER-1029: C client bug in zookeeper_init (if bad hostname is given)
> (no one has this assigned, I'll try to get a patch out by tomorrow)
> * ZOOKEEPER-832: Invalid session id causes infinite loop during automatic
> reconnect
> (I've asked Rakesh if can wrap it up, if anyone else can help that would
> be great)
> * ZOOKEEPER-2033: zookeeper follower fails to start after a restart
> immediately following a new epoch
> (pinged Flavio to get some feedback)
>
> Everything else can probably be punted for 3.4.8, unless anyone disagrees.
>
One more, which needs to be back-ported from trunk:
ZOOKEEPER-1506: Re-try DNS hostname -> IP resolution if node connection
fails
-rgs
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>.
Hi all,
sorry about dropping the ball here. So going over the unresolved issues, I
think these ones would be nice to tackle before cutting an RC:
* ZOOKEEPER-1833: fix windows build (one sub-task still opened:
ZOOKEEPER-1868)
* ZOOKEEPER-1029: C client bug in zookeeper_init (if bad hostname is given)
(no one has this assigned, I'll try to get a patch out by tomorrow)
* ZOOKEEPER-832: Invalid session id causes infinite loop during automatic
reconnect
(I've asked Rakesh if can wrap it up, if anyone else can help that would
be great)
* ZOOKEEPER-2033: zookeeper follower fails to start after a restart
immediately following a new epoch
(pinged Flavio to get some feedback)
Everything else can probably be punted for 3.4.8, unless anyone disagrees.
-rgs
On 16 May 2015 at 13:41, Michi Mutsuzaki <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Raul,
>
> There are 13 unresolved issues marked for 3.4.7: http://s.apache.org/95J
>
> We should triage them and decide whether they need to be fixed in
> 3.4.7 or then can be pushed out to 3.4.8.
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés
> <rg...@itevenworks.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 2015 7:51 PM, "Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés" <rg...@itevenworks.net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I went over all the tickets and I think we should be able to close them
> > over the next week:
> >>
> >> http://goo.gl/6Jjtj1
> >>
> >> After that, I'll cut an RC if that sounds reasonable. Thanks!
> >
> > I'd like to add one more:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-602. With that, I think
> > we should be ready to cut an RC unless anyone thinks differently.
> >
> >
> > -rgs
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Michi Mutsuzaki <mu...@gmail.com>.
Hi Raul,
There are 13 unresolved issues marked for 3.4.7: http://s.apache.org/95J
We should triage them and decide whether they need to be fixed in
3.4.7 or then can be pushed out to 3.4.8.
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés
<rg...@itevenworks.net> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2015 7:51 PM, "Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés" <rg...@itevenworks.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I went over all the tickets and I think we should be able to close them
> over the next week:
>>
>> http://goo.gl/6Jjtj1
>>
>> After that, I'll cut an RC if that sounds reasonable. Thanks!
>
> I'd like to add one more:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-602. With that, I think
> we should be ready to cut an RC unless anyone thinks differently.
>
>
> -rgs
Re: zookeeper-3.4.7 timeframe
Posted by Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés <rg...@itevenworks.net>.
On Apr 30, 2015 7:51 PM, "Raúl Gutiérrez Segalés" <rg...@itevenworks.net>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I went over all the tickets and I think we should be able to close them
over the next week:
>
> http://goo.gl/6Jjtj1
>
> After that, I'll cut an RC if that sounds reasonable. Thanks!
I'd like to add one more:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-602. With that, I think
we should be ready to cut an RC unless anyone thinks differently.
-rgs