zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edward Ribeiro <edward.ribe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RC1 issues (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache ZooKeeper release 3.5.2-alpha candidate 1)
Date Sun, 03 Jul 2016 14:19:25 GMT
Hi Flavio,


On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org> wrote:

> Hey Eddie,
>
> A few comments on your points:
>
> >
> > - the copyright notice is still dating "2008-2013". It's worth updating
> to
> > the current year?
>
> Where are you seeing this? The NOTICE file is correct from what I can see.
>

​Ops, sorry. I was referring to the PDFs and HTMLs in the docs/ folder.
Even after running "ant docs" the footnote has "2008-2013" copyright.
Images attached.



>
> > - I consistently ran on an test error equals to the one at
> > https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console <
> https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console>
>
> I think this is ZK-2152, which Chris has moved to 3.5.3, so even though it
> isn't ideal. it is expected.
>

​Got it. :)
​


>
> > - Also this one:
> >
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/%3C1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E
> >
>
> I don't know if there is a jira for this one. If not, better create one
> and make it a blocker.
>

​Okay, gonna look for and do this.


>
> > - In fact, there were 14 failing tests total (I suspect all of them
> related
> > to the C tests). Any ideas? A couple of flacky tests?
> >
> >
>
> In general, having a release with so many tests failing is bad. I didn't
> get these test failures, so it would be great to report them or make sure
> that there are jiras for it.
>

​Right. I was only skep​tical of my own tests because I ran the unit tests
on a relatively old Ubuntu version, even though it was Java 1.7. So, I am
running the tests on a newer Linux soon just to make sure it was not a
false negative.



>
> Test failures are possibly an indication that something is bad with the
> RC, so I wouldn't have +1 it if I had observed all those. It might be ok
> given that this is still labeled alpha.
>

​Excuse me. I only +1'ed because I suspect the errors are restricted to the
C binding and my Ubuntu version, etc. But I should have researched further
before giving +1, nevertheless. Point taken. :)

Edward

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