curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Date Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:02:50 GMT
I want to push a commit to master, merge master into 3.0, and then push
another commit into 3.0.  I think this will fix TestTreeCache and also
generally make that test fail faster if we write a bad test in the future.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is
> creating pollution.. working on this now.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>
>> I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this
>> release.
>>
>> -Jordan
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Actually let me clarify..
>>
>> +1 on 2.10.0
>> -1 on 3.1.0
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today).
>>> Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate
>>> subject.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let me take a look tomorrow.  I had no idea they were failing on 3.0.
>>>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > +1
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0
>>>>> branch
>>>>> > though.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more
>>>>> reliable
>>>>> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into
>>>>> this also.
>>>>> >> cheers
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address
this
>>>>> in the
>>>>> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release
as it’s been
>>>>> the case
>>>>> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> -JZ
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Keys verify OK.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> 2.10.0:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the
first run, but
>>>>> >>> passed
>>>>> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> 3.1.0:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Failed tests:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>>> >>>> Run 1:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected
[NODE_ADDED]
>>>>> but
>>>>> >>> found
>>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>>> >>>> Run 2:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>>>>> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>>>>> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected
>>>>> [/test/one] but
>>>>> >>>> found [/test]
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>>> >>>> Run 1:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected
[NODE_ADDED]
>>>>> but
>>>>> >>> found
>>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>>> >>>> Run 2: PASS
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>> randgalt@apache.org>
>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Hello,
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator
versions
>>>>> 2.10.0 and
>>>>> >>> 3.1.0
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx.
72 hours
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and
binaries are
>>>>> >>>>> provided for convenience.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Link to release notes:
>>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Staging repos:
>>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
>>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>>>>> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to
sign the
>>>>> release:
>>>>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>>>> >>>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>>>> >>>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

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