> >> 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
>> >
>> > 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
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
>
-
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
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
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
>>>>&
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
>>>>>>>
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
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
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
; 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
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?
>
>
[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
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...
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
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
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo