Are you going to cut from 4.3.1 from master or branch-4.3? IMO, since there's been no big feature nor breaking change, it should come from master (and branch-4.3 should be deleted until it is actually needed).
-Ivan On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Sijie Guo <[email protected]> wrote: > yes. I will cut the new RC candidate. > > - Sijie > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Sijie, >> >> BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is >> marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1 >> >> Shall we go ahead with the release ? >> >> Best Regards, >> Rakesh >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34 >> To: Rakesh R >> Cc: [email protected]; Sijie Guo >> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? >> >> I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not >> be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase >> rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail >> consistently. >> >> -Flavio >> >> > On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Flavio, >> > >> > I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds >> timeout". That is too small value. >> > Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test >> case again. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Rakesh >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Rakesh R >> > Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50 >> > To: [email protected] >> > Cc: Sijie Guo >> > Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1? >> > >> > Hi Flavio, >> > >> >>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a >> >>>>>>>> p >> >>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after >> >>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds >> > >> > I could see the following call can take some amount of time >> > Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh); >> > >> > I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis. >> Do you have the logs available with you. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Rakesh >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51 >> > To: Sijie Guo >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? >> > >> > I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an >> entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around: >> > >> > testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b >> > ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000 >> > milliseconds >> > >> >> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess >> that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the >> >> logs of CookieTest >> >> >> >> Host address: 127.0.0.1 >> >> Host name: localhost >> >> >> >> while in the vm I get this: >> >> >> >> Host address: 10.0.0.4 >> >> Host name: 10.0.0.4 >> >> >> >> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java: >> >> >> >> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) { >> >> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName(); >> >> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress); >> >> } >> >> >> >> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no? >> >> >> >> -Flavio >> >> >> >>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and >> hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are >> different. >> >>> >> >>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which >> would make the tests more deterministic. >> >>> >> >>> - Sijie >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >>> Sijie, >> >>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname >> maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing >> seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense? >> >>> -Flavio >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing >> one test case failure. >> >>> >> >>> -Rakesh >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Sijie Guo [mailto:[email protected] >> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>] >> >>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23 >> >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? >> >>> >> >>> I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address >> those tests for producing the new RC. >> >>> >> >>> - Sijie >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release >> 4.3.1? >> >>>> I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1. >> >>>> >> >>>> -Flavio >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >>
