Thanks a lot, Steve! I'll take a look :-) On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Steve Rowe <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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] > >
