Hi Ishan,

(I see you pinged me on #solr-dev IRC, but I was AFK for a while, sorry.)

I think the change I made to buildAndPushRelease.py, which fixed a problem I 
had with building the 7.0.1 RC that sounds suspiciously like what you’re 
encountering, might help?  I didn’t commit to branch_6_6, but here’s the 
branch_7_0 commit: 
<https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;a=commit;h=8d6c3889>

Here’s the branch_6_6 version:

  result = p.poll()
  if result is not None:
    msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)

Null is returned by poll() to indicate that the process has not terminated.  So 
what’s AFAICT happening to you is that the process *is* terminating in time, 
and is returning 0 (for success), which is not Null, which triggers failure.  
This is wrong.  My patch switches this code to use wait() instead of poll():

  try:
    result = p.wait(timeout=120)
    if result != 0:
      msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
      print(msg)
      raise RuntimeError(msg)
  except TimeoutExpired:
    msg = '    FAILED: %s [timed out after 2 minutes; see log %s]' % (command, 
LOG)


--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Update on the RC: I'm trying to build one for some time now. The latest 
> situation is that all the steps seem to be going well, but still the script 
> fails: https://gist.github.com/chatman/fa307c3e8253d2014d0e7bb381328396
> 
> Looking into what could be going wrong. Any help is most welcome.
> 
> @Shalin, I remember you mentioned that you found a way to build the artifacts 
> separately and signing them separately. Can you please share how to do so? It 
> will save me a lot of time; currently each of my attempts is building 
> artifacts from scratch.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ishan
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> Thanks! I ran precommit and test after the commit and all's well....
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-)
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> Committed now.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get along? 
> Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
> 
> Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to re-spin?
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
> http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
> http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15 of 
> them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different 
> machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK version 
> on all of these are 8u144.
> 
> Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest 
> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I downgraded 
> the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running as usual. 
> Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a known issue?
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> Done both for 6.6 and 6x
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
> I'll start the release later today.
> Thanks,
> Ishan
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> Ishan: 
> 
> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it. Give me 
> a few.
> 
> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently it's in 
> 7.0.1 and 7.1. 
> 
> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and leaving it 
> in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
> 
> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back from 
> you sooner.
> 
> Erick
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> Sounds good.  Thank you!
> 
>  
> 
> From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: 6.6.2 Release
> 
>  
> 
> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊
> 
> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to 
> mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not 
> committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it included 
> in a later release, if needed.
> 
> +1 to SOLR-11297.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
> 
> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the process
> 
> * helps users upgrade to later versions
> 
> * documentation
> 
>  
> 
> +1 to SOLR-11297
> 
>  
> 
> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat issue?
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if the 
> answer is no....
> 
>  
> 
> It's quite a safe fix though.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you!
> 
>  
> 
> From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: 6.6.2 Release
> 
>  
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
> 
> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to do 
> so or has an objection.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ishan
> 
> 
> 
> [0] - 
> https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
> 
> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: 
> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to