db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 10.5.1.0 release candidate
Date Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:09:07 GMT
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Knut Anders Hatlen <Knut.Hatlen@sun.com> wrote:
> Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> Kristian Waagan wrote:
>>>
>>> If you plan to vote against the release if DERBY-4075 is
>>> outstanding, I think we need to lay a plan for it.
>> One thing to note is that the community can still make a release even
>> if I vote -1.  It is not a veto and some might say I am too
>> conservative about these things, but thanks for placing such
>> importance on my vote and this issue!
>>
>>> I've been running the test for weeks without seeing the issue. The
>>> largest database grew to 67 GB (plus 67 GB for the backup), another
>>> one grew to 32 GB.
>>> If we clearly communicate the environment where the problems have
>>> been seen, people would get the chance to start test runs of their
>>> own.
>>> After all, starting the test itself is very simple.
>>>
>>>
>> I tried it on my Windows XP box with IBM 1.6 and cutting the sleeps to
>> one tenth of their original setting,  but ran into out of space errors
>> after  9 hours.  I  plan to start playing with this again after my
>> buddy testing is complete.  It would be great if others could kick off
>> runs.
>
> I've started a run too with a modified Derby. I applied the patch from
> the bug description in DERBY-3393 to see if that could be related. No
> errors so far, but I'll keep it running.
>
> --
> Knut Anders
>

Obviously, DERBY-4075 is a great concern to me. I was of two minds
between holding off and spinning the release. But without a clear way
of reproducing this except on my 2 - and admittedly somewhat older -
machines, it's difficult, and usually no serious testing is done until
there is an RC.

I don't want to spin another release right now. Firstly I'd rather
everybody attack the RC with whatever testing can be found and I'll
kick off more tests and find more machines, and also it takes quite
some effort to spin the artifacts and I'd rather spend the time on
doing some more testing first.

So, I suggest we do our tests, say, for the next 2 weeks, then see
where we are and if we're ready for another RC at that time.

Opinions?

Myrna

Mime
View raw message