Thanks Stack, if nobody disagrees I'll do that for 0.94.1RC0.
There were some test runs that had no failed tests (the build then failed for other reasons), so presumably the test code is flaky and the current situation is no indication of bad production code. Thanks. -- Lars ----- Original Message ----- From: Stack <st...@duboce.net> To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> Cc: Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 2:46 PM Subject: Re: Build failed in Jenkins: HBase-0.94 #330 On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:09 AM, lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> wrote: > It happened again, and two more runs with test failures. > In seems that unless we can accept a build not created by the build machines, > but instead locally on my machine, we're at the moment unable to produce a > release. I used to always make releases by building locally. Its only in the last six months or year that I figured I could take what was made by jenkins. > I can easily do that if people are willing to accept an artifact created that > way. Please let me know. > I would also support the stance that we should not release another version > before we sorted that out. Opinions are welcome. > I think it'd be fine making the 0.94.1RC0. > It's interesting that the security build has none of the problems. There at > least 1/2 of the builds succeed. > Yeah. Thats interesting. As Andrew speculates, its different order of unit tests or extra friction makes tests pass. > > Do you know how to get access to the Jenkins machines? > It seemed "difficult" last time I asked: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4055 > What we need to do is (1) analyze the tests and see why the fail/hang and (2) > what the heck is up with the Jenkins machines. > On 1., yeah, its an ongoing job that we've been slacking on. We could organize a swat team to dig in. It'll take a bit of work. Seems like a bunch of flakey tests and then there are the times it passes where a test is hung (but it looks like all passed). > Jean-Marc said many tests fail as part of a bigger run and than pass when run > in isolation. That is still not acceptable, IMHO. > Agree. St.Ack
