I am cutting 4.3.1 from branch 4.3. as we already cut 4.3.0, I'd think we should release 4.3.1 from branch 4.3 rather than from master. otherwise, it is a bit confused for maintaining. we could focus on 4.4 and move on from 4.3 after this.
btw, the last jira for 4.3.1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-854 could anyone review it? - Sijie On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > yes. I will cut the new RC candidate. > > > > - Sijie > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunque...@yahoo.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R <rake...@huawei.com> > 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:fpjunque...@yahoo.com] > >> Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34 > >> To: Rakesh R > >> Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; 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 <rake...@huawei.com> 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: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org > >> > 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:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.INVALID] > >> > Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51 > >> > To: Sijie Guo > >> > Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org > >> > 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 <guosi...@gmail.com> 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 < > >> fpjunque...@yahoo.com <mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com>> 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 <guosi...@gmail.com <mailto: > >> guosi...@gmail.com>> 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 < > >> fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid <mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid>> > >> 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 < > rake...@huawei.com > >> <mailto:rake...@huawei.com>> 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:guosi...@gmail.com > >> >>> <mailto:guosi...@gmail.com>] > >> >>> Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23 > >> >>> To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <mailto:dev@bookkeeper.apache.org> > >> >>> 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 < > >> fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid <mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid>> > >> 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 > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> >
