Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-05-19 Thread Sijie Guo
> >> marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1 > >> > >> Shall we go ahead with the release ? > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Rakesh > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Flavio Junqueira [mail

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-05-19 Thread Ivan Kelly
>> > >> > I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds >> timeout". That is too small value. >> > Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 6) and verify the test >> case again. >> &g

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-05-13 Thread Sijie Guo
is > marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1 > > Shall we go ahead with the release ? > > Best Regards, > Rakesh > > -Original Message- > From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com] > Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34 > To: Rakesh R >

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-05-13 Thread Flavio Junqueira
- From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com] Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34 To: Rakesh R Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Sijie Guo Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is r

RE: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-05-13 Thread Rakesh R
2015 03:34 To: Rakesh R Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Sijie Guo Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-20 Thread Flavio Junqueira
nal Message- > From: Rakesh R > Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50 > To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org > Cc: Sijie Guo > Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1? > > Hi Flavio, > >>>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.ap >>>>&

RE: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-20 Thread Rakesh R
50 To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org Cc: Sijie Guo Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1? Hi Flavio, >>>>>>> testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.ap >>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after >>>>>>>

RE: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-20 Thread Rakesh R
are the same. Does it make sense? >> -Flavio >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R > <mailto:rake...@huawei.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-20 Thread Flavio Junqueira
>> >> >> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R > <mailto:rake...@huawei.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test >> case failure. >> >>

RE: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-19 Thread Rakesh R
t; failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense? >> -Flavio >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is address

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-19 Thread Sijie Guo
; seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense? >> -Flavio >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one >> test cas

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-19 Thread Flavio Junqueira
failure. > > -Rakesh > > -Original Message- > From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosi...@gmail.com <mailto:guosi...@gmail.com>] > Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23 > To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org <mailto:dev@bookkeeper.apache.org> > Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? > >

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-19 Thread Sijie Guo
[mailto:guosi...@gmail.com] > Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23 > To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org > Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? > > I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address > those tests for producing the new RC. > > - Sijie > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-19 Thread Sijie Guo
March 2015 10:23 > To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org > Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? > > I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address > those tests for producing the new RC. > > - Sijie > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < > fpjunque...

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-19 Thread Flavio Junqueira
we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure. -Rakesh -Original Message- From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosi...@gmail.com] Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23 To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? I think RC0 is failed because of the failed

RE: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-17 Thread Rakesh R
Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure. -Rakesh -Original Message- From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosi...@gmail.com] Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23 To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? I think RC0 is failed because of the

Re: RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-17 Thread Sijie Guo
I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC. - Sijie On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira < fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1? > I'm actuall

RC for 4.3.1?

2015-03-17 Thread Flavio Junqueira
Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1? I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1. -Flavio