On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Myrna van Lunteren <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rick Hillegas <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi Myrna, >> >> Some comments inline... >> >> On 9/30/11 11:57 AM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Matrigali >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Rick Hillegas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 9/29/11 6:22 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm now officially cancelling the vote for 10.8.2.1 as a release >>>>>> candidate. >>>>>> The reasons are the issues which I updated to blocker: >>>>>> DERBY-5430 >>>>>> DERBY-5422 >>>>> >>>>> Hi Myrna, >>>>> >>>>> I believe these are both consequences of increasing the concurrency of >>>>> identity columns, that is, fallout from DERBY-4437. I am looking at >>>>> DERBY-5430 now. I intend to look at DERBY-5422 now that you have >>>>> demonstrated that it is not fixed by the patch for DERBY-5423. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think I will be able to wrap up both bugs next week since I will >>>>> be busy at Java One. Here are some options to consider: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Back out the port of DERBY-4437 to 10.8 and continue debugging the >>>>> issues on the trunk. I am not confident that this will fix DERBY-5422. I >>>>> think that bug is triggered by the use of identity columns in NsTest and >>>>> the >>>>> bug appears because identities now use the same preallocation logic as >>>>> sequences. It is likely that the bug is also triggered by the use of >>>>> sequences, and without more investigation I can't say whether the bug is >>>>> even new to 10.8.2. >>>> >>>> Given the number of issues that have surfaced in this testing round >>>> related >>>> to backport of identity enhancement I would lean toward backing out the >>>> backport of 4437, cut a new release candidate and verify that nstest no >>>> longer sees new issues. I believe even without 4437 the proposed release >>>> would be a marked improvement for apache 10.8 users. >>>> >>>> Concurrently work on the issues in trunk. And we can cut another 10.8 >>>> bug fix release down the line when we have had time to fix the issues and >>>> run some long term stress testing to verify the identity behavior which >>>> will >>>> affect many existing users. >>>> >>>> From my reading of the code I agree with rick that the remaining issues >>>> are >>>> not specific to identity and also affect sequences. So likely we >>>> will want to backport fixes made to 10.8 for sequences. It may be >>>> interesting to either add sequences to nstest or fork a copy that >>>> substitutes them to verify that the issue is not particular to identity. >>>> It would be also valuable if we could produce some tests that reproduce >>>> the issues much more reliably than nstest. >>>> >>>>> 2) Hope that someone else can pick up DERBY-5422 while I look at >>>>> DERBY-5430. >>>>> >>>>> 3) Wait a couple weeks for the next RC to give me time to fix both of >>>>> these bugs. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> -Rick >>>>> >>> Thanks for your input Rick, Mike. >>> >>> I think Rick has come a long way in fixing a number of issues >>> resulting from DERBY-4377. And it appears to me that backing out >>> DERBY-4377 is also a considerable effort at this time? (I assume this >>> means we then need to back out also DERBY-5408, doc issue DERBY-5307 >>> (do we loose the need for derby.language.preallocator property if we >>> back this out?), DERBY-5423? How about DERBY-4565?). >> >> I think we would need to back out the following commits: >> >> DERBY-4437 1141645: This is the master commit which ported most of the 10.9 >> changes to 10.8 >> >> DERBY-4437 1142052: This commit ported an upgrade test from 10.9 to 10.8. >> The test verifies the new identity behavior. >> >> DERBY-5307 1141651: This commit ported documentation of the >> derby.language.sequence.preallocator property from 10.9 docs to 10.8 docs. >> Note that the property still has meaning for sequences although the property >> would be less capable after backing out 1141645. >> >> DERBY-5408 1170178: This commit ported the localization fixes for the 2200H >> message from 10.9 to the 10.8 branch. >> >> DERBY-5426 1174297: This commit ported some SequenceUpdater changes from >> 10.9 to the 10.8 branch. The changes improved the error reporting when there >> was too much contention on an identity column. >> >> I don't think that we need to back out the following work: >> >> DERBY-5423: Nothing to do here. This issue was resolved because of the work >> on DERBY-5426. >> >> DERBY-4565: Nothing to do here. All of this work made it into 10.6.1.0. >> >>> Rick, do you think you could have a handle on DERBY-5430 say - within >>> a week? How much time/effort would backing out DERBY-4377 take? >> >> I've made good progress today but I can't promise that I'll understand the >> problem by the end of next week. Next week I will be busy at Java One. I >> think it's likely I will understand what's broken by the end of the >> following week. >> >> If all goes well, it would take a day to back out DERBY-4437. If all doesn't >> go well, it could take longer. >> >> I don't think I will have time to adequately test an RC which is produced >> during the week of Java One. >> >> Thanks, >> -Rick >>> >>> I'm not happy to spin a release with only nstest to detect DERBY-5422. >>> >>> Would a week more time give someone the opportunity to analyze the >>> problem and come up with a repro? Is there anyone interested/willing >>> to attempt a repro for either of these two issues? >>> >>> Myrna >>> >> >> > > Thank you for the information Rick, > > I think at this time I'd like for DERBY-4377 to be backed out. > Do you have time to tackle this task now? > > Myrna > Oh dear, I've muddled the numbers again. I meant for DERBY-4437 to be backed out of the 10.8 branch.
Myrna
