: But this could just be a stupid bug in smokeTester. All it looks for
: is Started SocketConnector@0.0.0.0:8983 in the server's stderr
: output. Maybe this is too brittle?
Solr's SLF4J logging recently changed to use log4j as the binding
in th example tests instead of JUL. With that
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: But this could just be a stupid bug in smokeTester. All it looks for
: is Started SocketConnector@0.0.0.0:8983 in the server's stderr
: output. Maybe this is too brittle?
Solr's SLF4J logging recently
Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene-Solr-SmokeRelease-4.2.1/11/
No tests ran.
Build Log:
[...truncated 32490 lines...]
prepare-release-no-sign:
[mkdir] Created dir:
/usr/home/hudson/hudson-slave/workspace/Lucene-Solr-SmokeRelease-4.2.1/lucene/build/fakeRelease
[copy] Copying
Hmm cascading errors. First, the 4.x smoke tester failed because
Solr's example (java -jar start.jar) took more than 30 minutes to
start:
https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene-Solr-SmokeRelease-4.x/61/console
But then because of a bug in the smoke tester, it left this server
running, which
Good point.
I'll take down all the 4.2.1 jobs.
Steve
On Mar 31, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the fact we now have this 4.2.1-SmokeRelease job (didnt the vote pass?)
created a situation where two smoke-testing jobs (e.g. 5.x and 4.2.1 or
something) were
I think there's only one executor on the lucene slave, though, so no concurrent
jobs.
On Mar 31, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe the fact we now have this 4.2.1-SmokeRelease job (didnt the vote pass?)
created a situation where two smoke-testing jobs (e.g. 5.x and
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
hmm there goes that theory. Maybe its just a leftover process that didn't
get killed from a previous smoketester: I think to be safe the python code
should always terminate the server it starts with 'kill -9' and nothing
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
hmm there goes that theory. Maybe its just a leftover process that didn't
get killed from a previous smoketester: I think to be safe the
