Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CHANGELOG: set dates for 3.1.12 & 3.2.17 release #9414

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 13, 2018

Conversation

jpbetz
Copy link
Contributor

@jpbetz jpbetz commented Mar 9, 2018

And add notes in preparation of 3.1.13 and 3.2.18

@jpbetz jpbetz self-assigned this Mar 9, 2018
@jpbetz jpbetz requested a review from gyuho March 9, 2018 00:10
@jpbetz jpbetz changed the title CHANGELOG: set dates for 3.1.12 & 3.2.17 releases, add notes for next… CHANGELOG: set dates for 3.1.12 & 3.2.17 release Mar 9, 2018
Copy link
Contributor

@gyuho gyuho left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm thanks.

CHANGELOG-3.1.md Outdated

### Improved

- Adjust [election timeout on server restart](https://github.com/coreos/etcd/pull/9364) to reduce [disruptive rejoining servers](https://github.com/coreos/etcd/issues/9333).
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jpbetz jpbetz Mar 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gyuho Should this go all the way back to 3.1?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I'm fine with backporting to 3.1.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@00b8423). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #9414   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   72.34%           
=========================================
  Files             ?      362           
  Lines             ?    30795           
  Branches          ?        0           
=========================================
  Hits              ?    22280           
  Misses            ?     6891           
  Partials          ?     1624

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 00b8423...4308c70. Read the comment docs.

CHANGELOG-3.1.md Outdated

- Adjust [election timeout on server restart](https://github.com/coreos/etcd/pull/9364) to reduce [disruptive rejoining servers](https://github.com/coreos/etcd/issues/9333).
- Previously, etcd fast-forwards election ticks on server start, with only one tick left for leader election. This is to speed up start phase, without having to wait until all election ticks elapse. Advancing election ticks is useful for cross datacenter deployments with larger election timeouts. However, it was affecting cluster availability if the last tick elapses before leader contacts the restarted node.
- Now, when etcd restarts, it does not fast-forward election ticks.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now, when etcd restarts, it adjusts election ticks with more than one tick left, thus more time for leader to prevent disruptive restart.

#9415 is merged, where it adjust election ticks on restart.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated CHANGELOGs to use reference #9415

CHANGELOG-3.2.md Outdated

- Adjust [election timeout on server restart](https://github.com/coreos/etcd/pull/9364) to reduce [disruptive rejoining servers](https://github.com/coreos/etcd/issues/9333).
- Previously, etcd fast-forwards election ticks on server start, with only one tick left for leader election. This is to speed up start phase, without having to wait until all election ticks elapse. Advancing election ticks is useful for cross datacenter deployments with larger election timeouts. However, it was affecting cluster availability if the last tick elapses before leader contacts the restarted node.
- Now, when etcd restarts, it does not fast-forward election ticks.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now, when etcd restarts, it adjusts election ticks with more than one tick left, thus more time for leader to prevent disruptive restart.

#9415 is merged, where it adjust election ticks on restart.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh I meant

Now, when etcd restarts, it does not fast-forward election ticks.

is not true anymore.

When #9415 is merged, then it works as

Now, when etcd restarts, it adjusts election ticks with more than one tick left, thus more time for leader to prevent disruptive restart.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I follow now. CHANGELOGs fixed.

@jpbetz jpbetz force-pushed the changelog-3.1.13-3.2.18 branch 2 times, most recently from a537828 to 34b6a12 Compare March 13, 2018 19:26
Copy link
Contributor

@gyuho gyuho left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm. thanks!

@gyuho gyuho merged commit 3e668a9 into etcd-io:master Mar 13, 2018
@mborsz
Copy link
Contributor

mborsz commented Mar 16, 2018

When do we expect v3.1.13 to be released?

@gyuho
Copy link
Contributor

gyuho commented Mar 16, 2018

We have one more pending fix. Hopefully sometime next week.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants