Hi Anshum,

I think the root cause here is that Version.java on the 5.x branch is
missing a 5.6.0 constant, and LATEST should point to that, which would then
make TestBackCompat happy that it's seeing a 5.5.1 index?

Thank you for doing the release!

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:

> Also, while trying to add back compat index for 5.5.1 on branch_5x, I'm
> consistently getting the following error:
>
>    [junit4]   2> NOTE: reproduce with: ant test
>  -Dtestcase=TestBackwardsCompatibility -Dtests.method=testAllVersionsTested
> -Dtests.seed=FAA56607BEABEC65 -Dtests.slow=true -Dtests.locale=en-SG
> -Dtests.timezone=Etc/GMT-12 -Dtests.asserts=true
> -Dtests.file.encoding=ISO-8859-1
>    [junit4] FAILURE 0.00s |
> TestBackwardsCompatibility.testAllVersionsTested <<<
>    [junit4]    > Throwable #1: java.lang.AssertionError: Extra backcompat
> test files:
>    [junit4]    >   5.5.1-cfs
>    [junit4]    > at
> __randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([FAA56607BEABEC65:EA7A89470A3CFA49]:0)
>    [junit4]    > at
> org.apache.lucene.index.TestBackwardsCompatibility.testAllVersionsTested(TestBackwardsCompatibility.java:480)
>    [junit4]    > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
>
> Seems like it doesn't want the 5.5.1 index.
>
> I've already added the index to branch_5_5 as per the instructions.
>
> Any suggestions in terms of what's going on here? I'll try to look at this
> when on my flight tomorrow but I'm not sure about the connectivity etc. so
> if someone else gets a chance or already knows what's going on, it'd be
> great!
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does anyone know if addVersion should have been run on master, 6x, and
>> 6.0 for the 5.5.1 release?
>> The Version.java on master has no mention of any 5x release so I am not
>> sure if that is by design and we're not supposed to track the versions on
>> master for (Latest - 2) versions.
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

Reply via email to