Should we cancel the release? Scott?
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0 branch
> though.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more reliable
>> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this also.
>> cheers
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this in the
>>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been the case
>>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>>>
>>> -JZ
>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Keys verify OK.
>>>>
>>>> 2.10.0:
>>>>
>>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but
>>> passed
>>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>>>>
>>>> 3.1.0:
>>>>
>>>> Failed tests:
>>>>
>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>> Run 1:
>>>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
>>> found
>>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>> Run 2:
>>>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one] but
>>>> found [/test]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>> Run 1:
>>>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
>>> found
>>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>> Run 2: PASS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and
>>> 3.1.0
>>>>>
>>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
>>>>> provided for convenience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Link to release notes:
>>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>>>>>
>>>>> Staging repos:
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> Binary artifacts:
>>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>>>>>
>>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>>>>> 2.10.0 -
>>>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>>>>>
>>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
