You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@hadoop.apache.org by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> on 2009/09/03 06:02:00 UTC
[Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Hadoop PMC,
Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
Patrick
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by stack <st...@duboce.net>.
+1
I downloaded it, reviewed documentation and then put it in place of the
patched ZK in hbase (This candidate includes the patch that made us patch
our ZK in the first place). I put up a load on a small cluster with a
quorum of three servers. This candidate runs as good/bad as the patched ZK
we ship with.
St.Ack
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hadoop PMC,
>
> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>
> Patrick
>
> Hadoop PMC,
>
> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Patrick
>
> I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.2.1. This is a bug fix
> release addressing a number of significant issues -- see the release notes
> for details.
>
> *** Please download, test and VOTE before the
> *** vote closes EOD on Wednesday, September 2.***
>
> http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.2.1-candidate-0/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ephunt/zookeeper-3.2.1-candidate-0/>
>
> Should we release this?
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
No worries. Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not against giving credit
where it's due, so while may be disagreement on whether this is required
or not I'm happy to add this to the notice.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-521
If you have any comments on the suggested text please feel free to
comment on the jira.
Regards,
Patrick
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:43, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>>> Well, I'm not guessing any more than you do. :-)
>> :-)
>>
>>> I didn't -1, because I've no binding vote anyway on this PMC.
>>> I just checked out the release and gave feedback, whether it's
>>> appreciated or not I'm not quite sure.
>> We take all serious votes seriously.
>>
>>> Imperative to whom?
>>>
>>> Hurrying a release never serves well. Votes at Apache should run for
>>> at least 72 hrs. It's also convenient to give a timezone and time when
>>> the vote ends, because EOD might be at different times for different
>>> people.
>>> If this is a security fix, however, I think a shorter timeframe is ok.
>>> But it is not labelled as such.
>> There is no hurry here. The vote started when my initial email was sent -
>> specifically "08/28/2009 11:21 AM" and closed on "09/03/2009 03:36 PM",
>> which is greater than the requisite 72 hrs. You make a good point however, I
>> will include timezone in subsequent emails.
>
> I couldn't make out when the release vote had been started.
> Looks like a great release then.
> Thanks for bearing with me,
>
> Bernd
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 20:43, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>>
>> Well, I'm not guessing any more than you do. :-)
>
> :-)
>
>> I didn't -1, because I've no binding vote anyway on this PMC.
>> I just checked out the release and gave feedback, whether it's
>> appreciated or not I'm not quite sure.
>
> We take all serious votes seriously.
>
>> Imperative to whom?
>>
>> Hurrying a release never serves well. Votes at Apache should run for
>> at least 72 hrs. It's also convenient to give a timezone and time when
>> the vote ends, because EOD might be at different times for different
>> people.
>> If this is a security fix, however, I think a shorter timeframe is ok.
>> But it is not labelled as such.
>
> There is no hurry here. The vote started when my initial email was sent -
> specifically "08/28/2009 11:21 AM" and closed on "09/03/2009 03:36 PM",
> which is greater than the requisite 72 hrs. You make a good point however, I
> will include timezone in subsequent emails.
I couldn't make out when the release vote had been started.
Looks like a great release then.
Thanks for bearing with me,
Bernd
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> Well, I'm not guessing any more than you do. :-)
:-)
> I didn't -1, because I've no binding vote anyway on this PMC.
> I just checked out the release and gave feedback, whether it's
> appreciated or not I'm not quite sure.
We take all serious votes seriously.
> Imperative to whom?
>
> Hurrying a release never serves well. Votes at Apache should run for
> at least 72 hrs. It's also convenient to give a timezone and time when
> the vote ends, because EOD might be at different times for different
> people.
> If this is a security fix, however, I think a shorter timeframe is ok.
> But it is not labelled as such.
There is no hurry here. The vote started when my initial email was sent
- specifically "08/28/2009 11:21 AM" and closed on "09/03/2009 03:36
PM", which is greater than the requisite 72 hrs. You make a good point
however, I will include timezone in subsequent emails.
Patirck
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 18:12, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 18:25, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The configure script is free license (it's in the header of the file).
>>> IANAL
>>> but based on my understanding of apache license requirements this makes
>>> the
>>> file a "TYPE A" license, as there are no other stated requirements wrt
>>> notice, we are in compliance.
>>
>> I'm not saying that the license is incompatible, I am saying that you
>> need to record third party contributions in the NOTICE file.
>>
>> See
>> http://apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/NOTICE.txt
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk/NOTICE.txt
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/NOTICE.txt
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/hbase/trunk/NOTICE.txt
>> and probably many, many others
>
> Hi Bernd, we do have a notice file similar to your examples (actually we
> have at least 5 of them) included in the release. I looked at these examples
> you've included and I don't see any mention of autotools related files (like
> configure).
>
>> PS: I don't think it is particulary nice to close a vote when there
>> are ongoing discussions.
>
> You stated the following in your original email "I guess it is not safe to
> release this as-is.". You didn't -1 the vote and you are implicitly saying
> that you don't know and are just guessing.
Well, I'm not guessing any more than you do. :-)
I didn't -1, because I've no binding vote anyway on this PMC.
I just checked out the release and gave feedback, whether it's
appreciated or not I'm not quite sure.
> You don't point to any supporting
> evidence for this statement such as explicit requirements from Apache.
This is what I was referring to:
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> Additionally I followed up immediately with our PMC chair and he said this
> was not an issue. I then responded to your email.
>
> I will double check with Owen on this and ask him to comment on the thread.
> If you could point to a specific apache document stating this requirement
> that would help alot. This is a critical fix release that we are trying to
> get out so resolving this ASAP is imperative.
Imperative to whom?
Hurrying a release never serves well. Votes at Apache should run for
at least 72 hrs. It's also convenient to give a timezone and time when
the vote ends, because EOD might be at different times for different
people.
If this is a security fix, however, I think a shorter timeframe is ok.
But it is not labelled as such.
Bernd
>
> Patrick
>
>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> There is foreign code in the release tar ball, which is not attributed
>>>> to in the top-level LICENSE/NOTICE file.
>>>> see for example
>>>> src/c/configure
>>>> So I guess it is not safe to release this as-is.
>>>>
>>>> It would be nice if the release artifacts would be named
>>>> apache-zookeeper...
>>>> but this more my personal taste than a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Bernd
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 06:02, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hadoop PMC,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> Hadoop PMC,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.2.1. This is a bug fix
>>>>> release addressing a number of significant issues -- see the release
>>>>> notes
>>>>> for details.
>>>>>
>>>>> *** Please download, test and VOTE before the
>>>>> *** vote closes EOD on Wednesday, September 2.***
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.2.1-candidate-0/
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we release this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> Looking into svn, I now see this is a generated file, so indeed it
> doesn't need to be recorded in the LICENSE file.
That's correct - this is a generated file.
> One additional question: What would happen if you would distribute
> src/c as it is in SVN, namely without all the files from the tar ball?
> Would that still work for users?
It is only recently (3.2.0) that we started distributing these files as
part of the release archive. Previously we just distributed the *.ac
(etc...) files that we have written which are used to generate the
configure scripts. However users were having problems with this and in
the end we had to start distrib these generated files. AFAIC
distributing the configure script with a release is considered "best
practice".
Patrick
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 19:10, Owen O'Malley<oo...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>
> I'm not saying that the license is incompatible, I am saying that you
>
> need to record third party contributions in the NOTICE file.
>
> The critical reference is:
> http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/autoconf-2.53/html_node/Distributing.html#Distributing
I don't think GNU/FSF resources are authorative or in any way
generating binding policy for making releases here at Apache.
> In particular, the files generated by autoconf can be distributed under the
> same license as the rest of the package. Therefore, although the files
> confusing claim to be GPL, they are actually being distributed under the
> Apache license. My understanding is that only used components that have a
> different license need to be in NOTICE. I believe this is a non-issue.
> -- Owen
Again, I'm not claiming this is a license issue.
And for me being a Java weeny it is not immediately obvious that this
is actually a Zookeeper-generated file, not something which is copied
or contributed from somewhere else into svn (otherwise it must be
attributed as such somewhere.)
Looking into svn, I now see this is a generated file, so indeed it
doesn't need to be recorded in the LICENSE file.
One additional question: What would happen if you would distribute
src/c as it is in SVN, namely without all the files from the tar ball?
Would that still work for users?
Bernd
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
Given that gnu itself states no notice is required I consider this
discussion closed.
Patrick
Owen O'Malley wrote:
>
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that the license is incompatible, I am saying that you
>> need to record third party contributions in the NOTICE file.
>
> The critical reference is:
>
> http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/autoconf-2.53/html_node/Distributing.html#Distributing
>
>
> In particular, the files generated by autoconf can be distributed under
> the same license as the rest of the package. Therefore, although the
> files confusing claim to be GPL, they are actually being distributed
> under the Apache license. My understanding is that only used components
> that have a different license need to be in NOTICE. I believe this is a
> non-issue.
>
> -- Owen
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Owen O'Malley <oo...@yahoo-inc.com>.
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> I'm not saying that the license is incompatible, I am saying that you
> need to record third party contributions in the NOTICE file.
The critical reference is:
http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/autoconf-2.53/html_node/Distributing.html#Distributing
In particular, the files generated by autoconf can be distributed
under the same license as the rest of the package. Therefore, although
the files confusing claim to be GPL, they are actually being
distributed under the Apache license. My understanding is that only
used components that have a different license need to be in NOTICE. I
believe this is a non-issue.
-- Owen
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 18:25, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>> The configure script is free license (it's in the header of the file). IANAL
>> but based on my understanding of apache license requirements this makes the
>> file a "TYPE A" license, as there are no other stated requirements wrt
>> notice, we are in compliance.
>
> I'm not saying that the license is incompatible, I am saying that you
> need to record third party contributions in the NOTICE file.
>
> See
> http://apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/hbase/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> and probably many, many others
Hi Bernd, we do have a notice file similar to your examples (actually we
have at least 5 of them) included in the release. I looked at these
examples you've included and I don't see any mention of autotools
related files (like configure).
> PS: I don't think it is particulary nice to close a vote when there
> are ongoing discussions.
You stated the following in your original email "I guess it is not safe
to release this as-is.". You didn't -1 the vote and you are implicitly
saying that you don't know and are just guessing. You don't point to any
supporting evidence for this statement such as explicit requirements
from Apache. Additionally I followed up immediately with our PMC chair
and he said this was not an issue. I then responded to your email.
I will double check with Owen on this and ask him to comment on the
thread. If you could point to a specific apache document stating this
requirement that would help alot. This is a critical fix release that we
are trying to get out so resolving this ASAP is imperative.
Patrick
>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There is foreign code in the release tar ball, which is not attributed
>>> to in the top-level LICENSE/NOTICE file.
>>> see for example
>>> src/c/configure
>>> So I guess it is not safe to release this as-is.
>>>
>>> It would be nice if the release artifacts would be named
>>> apache-zookeeper...
>>> but this more my personal taste than a requirement.
>>>
>>> Bernd
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 06:02, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hadoop PMC,
>>>>
>>>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> Hadoop PMC,
>>>>
>>>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.2.1. This is a bug fix
>>>> release addressing a number of significant issues -- see the release
>>>> notes
>>>> for details.
>>>>
>>>> *** Please download, test and VOTE before the
>>>> *** vote closes EOD on Wednesday, September 2.***
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.2.1-candidate-0/
>>>>
>>>> Should we release this?
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Dhruba Borthakur <dh...@gmail.com>.
This is te first time I downloaded zookeeper and played around with it. Read
the docs and got myself to a point where I could understand te distribution.
Not much, but based on what I found, +1 for the release.
dhruba
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Bernd Fondermann <
bernd.fondermann@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 18:25, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> > The configure script is free license (it's in the header of the file).
> IANAL
> > but based on my understanding of apache license requirements this makes
> the
> > file a "TYPE A" license, as there are no other stated requirements wrt
> > notice, we are in compliance.
>
> I'm not saying that the license is incompatible, I am saying that you
> need to record third party contributions in the NOTICE file.
>
> See
> http://apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/hbase/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> and probably many, many others
>
> Bernd
>
> PS: I don't think it is particulary nice to close a vote when there
> are ongoing discussions.
>
> > Patrick
> >
> > Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> There is foreign code in the release tar ball, which is not attributed
> >> to in the top-level LICENSE/NOTICE file.
> >> see for example
> >> src/c/configure
> >> So I guess it is not safe to release this as-is.
> >>
> >> It would be nice if the release artifacts would be named
> >> apache-zookeeper...
> >> but this more my personal taste than a requirement.
> >>
> >> Bernd
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 06:02, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hadoop PMC,
> >>>
> >>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
> >>>
> >>> Patrick
> >>>
> >>> Hadoop PMC,
> >>>
> >>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Patrick
> >>>
> >>> I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.2.1. This is a bug fix
> >>> release addressing a number of significant issues -- see the release
> >>> notes
> >>> for details.
> >>>
> >>> *** Please download, test and VOTE before the
> >>> *** vote closes EOD on Wednesday, September 2.***
> >>>
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.2.1-candidate-0/<http://people.apache.org/%7Ephunt/zookeeper-3.2.1-candidate-0/>
> >>>
> >>> Should we release this?
> >>>
> >>> Patrick
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 18:25, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> The configure script is free license (it's in the header of the file). IANAL
> but based on my understanding of apache license requirements this makes the
> file a "TYPE A" license, as there are no other stated requirements wrt
> notice, we are in compliance.
I'm not saying that the license is incompatible, I am saying that you
need to record third party contributions in the NOTICE file.
See
http://apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/NOTICE.txt
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk/NOTICE.txt
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/NOTICE.txt
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/hbase/trunk/NOTICE.txt
and probably many, many others
Bernd
PS: I don't think it is particulary nice to close a vote when there
are ongoing discussions.
> Patrick
>
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is foreign code in the release tar ball, which is not attributed
>> to in the top-level LICENSE/NOTICE file.
>> see for example
>> src/c/configure
>> So I guess it is not safe to release this as-is.
>>
>> It would be nice if the release artifacts would be named
>> apache-zookeeper...
>> but this more my personal taste than a requirement.
>>
>> Bernd
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 06:02, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hadoop PMC,
>>>
>>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> Hadoop PMC,
>>>
>>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.2.1. This is a bug fix
>>> release addressing a number of significant issues -- see the release
>>> notes
>>> for details.
>>>
>>> *** Please download, test and VOTE before the
>>> *** vote closes EOD on Wednesday, September 2.***
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.2.1-candidate-0/
>>>
>>> Should we release this?
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
The configure script is free license (it's in the header of the file).
IANAL but based on my understanding of apache license requirements this
makes the file a "TYPE A" license, as there are no other stated
requirements wrt notice, we are in compliance.
Patrick
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is foreign code in the release tar ball, which is not attributed
> to in the top-level LICENSE/NOTICE file.
> see for example
> src/c/configure
> So I guess it is not safe to release this as-is.
>
> It would be nice if the release artifacts would be named
> apache-zookeeper...
> but this more my personal taste than a requirement.
>
> Bernd
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 06:02, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hadoop PMC,
>>
>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Hadoop PMC,
>>
>> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.2.1. This is a bug fix
>> release addressing a number of significant issues -- see the release notes
>> for details.
>>
>> *** Please download, test and VOTE before the
>> *** vote closes EOD on Wednesday, September 2.***
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.2.1-candidate-0/
>>
>> Should we release this?
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: [VOTE] Release ZooKeeper 3.2.1 (candidate 0)]]
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
There is foreign code in the release tar ball, which is not attributed
to in the top-level LICENSE/NOTICE file.
see for example
src/c/configure
So I guess it is not safe to release this as-is.
It would be nice if the release artifacts would be named
apache-zookeeper...
but this more my personal taste than a requirement.
Bernd
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 06:02, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hadoop PMC,
>
> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>
> Patrick
>
> Hadoop PMC,
>
> Please test and vote on this release in zookeeper-dev list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Patrick
>
> I've created a candidate build for ZooKeeper 3.2.1. This is a bug fix
> release addressing a number of significant issues -- see the release notes
> for details.
>
> *** Please download, test and VOTE before the
> *** vote closes EOD on Wednesday, September 2.***
>
> http://people.apache.org/~phunt/zookeeper-3.2.1-candidate-0/
>
> Should we release this?
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>