Thanks Steve, it was indeed the problem! On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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.o >> rg/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] >> >> >
