couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <m...@jan.io>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 2.3.1 RC2
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2019 19:49:38 GMT
Russell confirmed on IRC. The vote can proceed.

For extra safety: if anyone runs make check on this tarball and find test fails in the log,
please post them here, that would block the release.

It's all fine on Travis and I think Jenkins.

Cheers
Jan
—

> On 1. Mar 2019, at 11:17, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> I have a hard time reconciling those statements with what I’m seeing in the logs:
> 
> Consider this snippet from the latest 2.3.x build log[1]: https://gist.github.com/janl/3c7db5f3ff466f9985306253d61abc3b
> 
> It is the output for couchdb_views_tests[2], which has 5 test groups defined, and all
test groups with all their  inside them get an `...ok` line.
> 
> 4/5 groups get a `erl_child_setup: failed with error 32 on line 253` message *after*
the tests in each group ran to successful completion.
> 
> As such, I’d suggest we do NOT need to abort this vote just yet.
> 
> It’d be great to figure out what causes those messages to avoid confusion, and we’ve
addressed an unrelated but related issue about hard failing the test suite if a sub-group
fails, but the 2.3.x log does not exhibit this.
> 
> Obligatory statement that votes don’t happen on IRC.
> 
> Best
> Jan
> —
> 
> [1]: full log here: https://api.travis-ci.org/v3/job/494557908/log.txt
> [2]: https://github.com/apache/couchdb/blob/2.3.x/src/couch/test/couchdb_views_tests.erl
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 27. Feb 2019, at 22:26, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Based on discussion with Russell Branca (chewbranca) in IRC, we need to
>> abort this RC vote as he is effectively voting -1. Here's the full
>> transcript of our discussion:
>> 
>> ------------------------
>> 
>> 16:06 <+Wohali> chewbranca: you there? are you seeing these eunit
>>               context setup errors in 2.3.0 as well as the 2.3.1 RC
>>               and master?
>> 16:06 <+Wohali> I don't want to hold up 2.3.1 over something that was a
>>               pre-existing condition, but if it's something that
>>               changed between 2.3.0 and 2.3.1/master, we need to fix
>>               it
>> 16:07 <chewbranca> Wohali: well the fundamental issue right now is test
>>                  suite failures don't fail the build, which IMO should
>>                  be fixed before any further builds
>> 16:08 <chewbranca> I've been using this diff locally, which fails the
>>                  `make eunit` check upon an eunit failure: https://gist.github.com/chewbranca/65d2969ac191a5dfaf87172ace18d2ee
>> 16:08 <chewbranca> not sure that's the best approach, but we need
>>                  something like that
>> 16:08 <+Wohali> What I'm asking is: do you think this should block the
>>               release of 2.3.1?
>> 16:08 <+Wohali> By all means PR that to master and let's get shit in
>>               gear
>> 16:08 <+Wohali> I'm trying to work out when this problem started
>>               occurring, though.
>> 16:09 <chewbranca> yes, should definitely block any further releases,
>>                  because unless someone is manually inspecting the
>>                  eunit output, then we could have test failures
>>                  bubbling through
>> 16:11 <chewbranca> in theory this particular issue was introduced 26
>>                  days ago with the change to running individual eunit
>>                  tests: https://github.com/apache/couchdb/commit/20bbfbf972ad1f822e2ef1edfb3d47f2cec3f639
>> 16:11 <chewbranca> so this is probably a new thing, but we've definitely
>>                  had issues with eunit over the years
>> 16:12 <chewbranca> Wohali: I can make a quick PR with the diff I pasted
>>                  above and then we should be good to go IMO, but it
>>                  wouldn't hurt to see if there's a more proper way to
>>                  do that in a Makefile than just `|| exit 1`
>> 16:16 <+Wohali> chewbranca: are you 100% sure that context setup
>>               failures mean the tests are actually failing? They seem
>>               to be running and passing even after that. I'm too
>>               unfamiliar to know for sure.
>> 16:17 <+Wohali> chewbranca: that change you linked isn't in 2.3.1.
>> 16:17 <chewbranca> context setup failure means that setting up a series
>>                  of eunit test generators failed and those tests
>>                  aren't being executed
>> 16:17 <+Wohali> ok.
>> 16:18 <chewbranca> those will fail if you do `|| exit 1`, but they
>>                  continue running today because we don't exit on the
>>                  individual eunit runs
>> 16:18 <+Wohali> 2.3.1 has a critical fix for buffer sizes that we need
>>               to get out there. WOuld you accept me manually reviewing
>>               the output of 2.3.1's test suite  to ensure no context
>>               setup failures?
>> 16:18 <+Wohali> then we make this a blocker for 2.4.0?
>> 16:18 <chewbranca> what I linked above is just a diff that I've been
>>                  using locally because I wanted the suite to fail, and
>>                  it works
>> 16:19 <chewbranca> Wohali: IMO let's just add that diff and then if
>>                  folks know a more proper Makefile approach to doing
>>                  that type of thing then they can fix it later
>> 16:19 <+Wohali> to both 2.3.1 and master? And to Makefile.Win I presume?
>>               ;) Then we'll have to cancel the current RC and re-spin.
>> ...
>> 16:25 <chewbranca> https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/1951
>> 
>> ------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dave Cottlehuber" <dch@skunkwerks.at>
>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 6:10:05 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CouchDB 2.3.1 RC2
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019, at 10:56, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, at 06:27, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE-p3 amd64 + OTP 21.2.6 custom
>>>> 
>>>> - OK sigs and checksums
>>>> - OK release
>>>> - fauxton verify is happy
>>>> - make check fails with the C.UTF-8 issues Joan has mentioned
>>>> previously
>>>> 
>>>> belated +1 from me
>>>> 
>>>> BTW the port will be a bit delayed this time as I need to bump OTP
>>>> version and that usually has a bit of ports tree shakeout. My patch
>>>> for
>>>> that is https://reviews.freebsd.org/D18820
>>> 
>>> I forgot to mention that the tarball has the annoying -RC2 suffix in
>>> filenames, which makes the downstream packaging diffs fiddly. I have
>>> that unfinished PR https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/1927
>>> hopefully to fix that for next time.
>>> 
>>> A+
>>> Dave
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> 


Mime
View raw message