hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Build failed in Jenkins: HBase-0.94 #330
Date Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:28:40 GMT
Thanks Stack,

if nobody disagrees I'll do that for 0.94.1RC0.

There were some test runs that had no failed tests (the build then failed for other reasons),
so presumably the test code is flaky and the current situation is no indication of bad production


-- Lars

----- Original Message -----
From: Stack <stack@duboce.net>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Build failed in Jenkins: HBase-0.94 #330

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:09 AM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It happened again, and two more runs with test failures.
> In seems that unless we can accept a build not created by the build machines, but instead
locally on my machine, we're at the moment unable to produce a release.

I used to always make releases by building locally.  Its only in the
last six months or year that I figured I could take what was made by

> I can easily do that if people are willing to accept an artifact created that way. Please
let me know.
> I would also support the stance that we should not release another version before we
sorted that out. Opinions are welcome.

I think it'd be fine making the 0.94.1RC0.

> It's interesting that the security build has none of the problems. There at least 1/2
of the builds succeed.

Yeah.  Thats interesting.  As Andrew speculates, its different order
of unit tests or extra friction makes tests pass.

> Do you know how to get access to the Jenkins machines?

It seemed "difficult" last time I asked:

> What we need to do is (1) analyze the tests and see why the fail/hang and (2) what the
heck is up with the Jenkins machines.

On 1., yeah, its an ongoing job that we've been slacking on.  We could
organize a swat team to dig in.    It'll take a bit of work.  Seems
like a bunch of flakey tests and then there are the times it passes
where a test is hung (but it looks like all passed).

> Jean-Marc said many tests fail as part of a bigger run and than pass when run in isolation.
That is still not acceptable, IMHO.



View raw message