Alright... pushed! I think this fixes things. Thanks for your patience! On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sounds good - go ahead. > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > > I want to push a commit to master, merge master into 3.0, and then push > another commit into 3.0. I think this will fix TestTreeCache and also > generally make that test fail faster if we write a bad test in the future. > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is >> creating pollution.. working on this now. >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this >>> release. >>> >>> -Jordan >>> >>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Actually let me clarify.. >>> >>> +1 on 2.10.0 >>> -1 on 3.1.0 >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today). >>>> Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate >>>> subject. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0. >>>>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
