On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Stefan Sperling <[email protected]> wrote: > The 1.7.10 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing. > Please get the tarballs from > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion > and add your signatures there. I plan to try and release on May > 30th so please try and get your votes/signatures in place by May 28th.
I had one failure with serf: update_tests.py#45 (tree conflicts 2.1:
leaf edit, tree del on update). But I can't reproduce it during
subsequent runs (I made a copy of the svn-test-work directory after
the failure).
See the dav-fails.log file in attachment.
Some relevant portion:
[[[
=============================================================
Expected 'beta' and actual 'beta' in UNQUIET STATUS tree are different!
=============================================================
EXPECTED NODE TO BE:
=============================================================
* Node name: beta
Path:
svn-test-work\working_copies\update_tests-45\local_leaf_edit_incoming_tree_del\DF\D1\beta
Contents: None
Properties: {}
Attributes: {'status': 'MM', 'copied': '+', 'wc_rev': '-'}
Children: None (node is probably a file)
=============================================================
ACTUAL NODE FOUND:
=============================================================
* Node name: beta
Path:
svn-test-work\working_copies\update_tests-45\local_leaf_edit_incoming_tree_del\DF\D1\beta
Contents: None
Properties: {}
Attributes: {'status': ' M', 'copied': '+', 'wc_rev': '-'}
Children: None (node is probably a file)
]]]
I'm suspecting a timestamp / sleep issue, which gave me a "spurious
test failure". But I'm not sure (how can I verify this?). Is this
failure log consistent with such a problem?
If this proves to be a correct hypothesis, I can sign the release (I
reran the test 3 times without problems). If not, I'll have to dig a
bit deeper.
Could this mean some sleep_for_timestamp is missing in this test?
--
Johan
dav-fails.log
Description: Binary data
