Is this RC still under vote or is it pulled? It's hard to tell with these threads what I should be looking for when evaluating it.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> wrote: > I filed ZOOKEEPER-2465 to track updating the copyright notice on all > documentation pages. Edward, thank you for reporting the problem. > > --Chris Nauroth > > > > > On 7/3/16, 12:02 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> On 03 Jul 2016, at 17:53, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >> > >> For my part, I got a successful full test run from RC1 before starting > >>the > >> [VOTE]. The problem with the silent failure of multi tests could have > >> snuck past me easily though. (Flavio, thank you for filing > >> ZOOKEEPER-2463.) I'm curious to hear test results from others who are > >> trying RC1. > > > >The test failures seem to be related to test timing, not bugs, but I > >haven't been able to confirm for the last two I mentioned. Granted that > >timing is in some sense a bug, all I'm saying is that it doesn't seem to > >indicate a regression or anything. > > > >> > >> It looks like we also need an issue to track updating the copyright > >>notice > >> in the docs. I don't believe this is an ASF compliance problem in the > >> same way that an erroneous NOTICE file would be, so I propose that we > >> address it in 3.5.3. > > > >Agreed, we need an issue for that. > > > >> > >> Flavio, you suggested filing a blocker for the ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc > >> failure. Did you want that targeted to 3.5.2 or 3.5.3? > >> > > > >I'm suggesting as a blocker for 3.5.3, I think we should proceed with > >3.5.2 as is and give some love to the C client in the next release. > > > >> Overall, how are people feeling about the RC1 [VOTE] at this point? Is > >> anyone considering a -1, or shall we proceed (keeping in mind it's an > >> alpha) with the intent of fixing things in a more rapid 3.5.3 release > >> cycle? > > > >I'd say we proceed. > > > >-Flavio > > > >> > >> > >> > >> On 7/3/16, 8:43 AM, "Flavio Junqueira" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> The issue with the TestReconfigServer test is that the client port is > >>> still used and we get a bind exception, which prevents the server from > >>> starting. To verify this locally, I simply added some code to retry and > >>> it works fine with that fix. Going forward we need a better fox. > >>> > >>> I haven't able to figure out yet the issue with the > >>> Zookeeper_simpleSystem tests. > >>> > >>> I have also found something strange with the multi tests. I have > >>>created > >>> ZK-2463 for this problem and made it a blocker for 3.5.3. > >>> > >>> -Flavio > >>> > >>>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:25, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I have spun a new ubuntu VM to check the C failures. I get three > >>>> failures with the new installation: > >>>> > >>>> Zookeeper_simpleSystem::testFirstServerDown : assertion : elapsed > >>>>10911 > >>>> tests/TestClient.cc:411: Assertion: equality assertion failed > >>>> [Expected: -101, Actual : -4] > >>>> tests/TestClient.cc:322: Assertion: assertion failed [Expression: > >>>> ctx.waitForConnected(zk)] > >>>> Failures !!! > >>>> Run: 43 Failure total: 2 Failures: 2 Errors: 0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> TestReconfigServer::testRemoveFollower/usr/bin/java > >>>> ZooKeeper JMX enabled by default > >>>> Using config: ./../../build/test/test-cppunit/conf/0.conf > >>>> Starting zookeeper ... FAILED TO START > >>>> zktest-mt: tests/ZooKeeperQuorumServer.cc:61: void > >>>> ZooKeeperQuorumServer::start(): Assertion `system(command.c_str()) == > >>>>0' > >>>> failed. > >>>> /bin/bash: line 5: 47059 Aborted (core dumped) > >>>> ZKROOT=./../.. CLASSPATH=$CLASSPATH:$CLOVER_HOME/lib/clover.jar > >>>> ${dir}$tst > >>>> > >>>> -Flavio > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 03 Jul 2016, at 15:19, Edward Ribeiro <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Flavio, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected] > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>>>> Hey Eddie, > >>>>> > >>>>> A few comments on your points: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - the copyright notice is still dating "2008-2013". It's worth > >>>>>> updating to > >>>>>> the current year? > >>>>> > >>>>> Where are you seeing this? The NOTICE file is correct from what I can > >>>>> see. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ops, sorry. I was referring to the PDFs and HTMLs in the docs/ > >>>>> folder. Even after running "ant docs" the footnote has "2008-2013" > >>>>> copyright. Images attached. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> - I consistently ran on an test error equals to the one at > >>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console > >>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console> > >>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console > >>>>>> <https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2982/console>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I think this is ZK-2152, which Chris has moved to 3.5.3, so even > >>>>> though it isn't ideal. it is expected. > >>>>> > >>>>> Got it. :) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> - Also this one: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/% > >>>>>>3C > >>>>>> 1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E > >>>>>> > >>>>>>< > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/zookeeper-dev/201601.mbox/ > >>>>>>%3 > >>>>>> C1279938263.1283.1453526737790.JavaMail.jenkins@crius%3E> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't know if there is a jira for this one. If not, better create > >>>>> one and make it a blocker. > >>>>> > >>>>> Okay, gonna look for and do this. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> - In fact, there were 14 failing tests total (I suspect all of them > >>>>>> related > >>>>>> to the C tests). Any ideas? A couple of flacky tests? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> In general, having a release with so many tests failing is bad. I > >>>>> didn't get these test failures, so it would be great to report them > >>>>>or > >>>>> make sure that there are jiras for it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Right. I was only skeptical of my own tests because I ran the unit > >>>>> tests on a relatively old Ubuntu version, even though it was Java > >>>>>1.7. > >>>>> So, I am running the tests on a newer Linux soon just to make sure it > >>>>> was not a false negative. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Test failures are possibly an indication that something is bad with > >>>>> the RC, so I wouldn't have +1 it if I had observed all those. It > >>>>>might > >>>>> be ok given that this is still labeled alpha. > >>>>> > >>>>> Excuse me. I only +1'ed because I suspect the errors are restricted > >>>>> to the C binding and my Ubuntu version, etc. But I should have > >>>>> researched further before giving +1, nevertheless. Point taken. :) > >>>>> > >>>>> Edward > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > >
