Excellent. Thanks everyone. I’ll work on a new release. -Jordan
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 8:10 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>
