3.0 build ran with no test errors. Nice work Scott! On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for sorting this Scott, > I'm running the tests on 3.0 now. > cheers > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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) >> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
