They do fail intermittently, and have been for some time. It takes over 6 hours to do a full IT run and the builds.apache.org servers can't run them. We use -skipITs there. I'd be surprised if they were all passing for the 1.7.2 release. They are not all passing now on the 1.7 branch.
I was thinking that a passing -Psunny would be a good release criteria until we can get the failing ones cleaned up. The referenced ITs are not part of the sunny profile. Josh and I have been cleaning them up, but it is going to take some time. Many of them really need to be refactored and the validity of the tests should be evaluated. I think some of them could become unit tests. And we really need them to run in less than 6 hours. Since only tickets for sporadicly failing ITs not part of the sunny profile were left in Jira, I didn't want to hold up progress on the release. What do others think? On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > do the referenced ITs still fail? IIRC, passing ITs is part of our > release criteria. > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just moved the last 2 tickets out of 1.8.0. Both tickets were for > > failing ITs. Seems like we are ready now for the release. Anyone > disagree? > > > > I plan on making an RC tomorrow. I'll start with a RC0 to work out the > > process then make an RC1 if that goes smoothly. > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Didn't get a chance to talk to Christopher so hopefully what I > understood > >> > from emails with Josh and him is correct. > >> > > >> > Moved issues out of 1.8.0. Here is a summary of the fix version > changes > >> > > >> > 8 issues - 1.7.2, 1.8.0 => 1.7.2, 1.8.1 > >> > 9 issues - 1.6.6, 1.7.3, 1.8.0 => 1.6.6, 1.7.3, 1.8.1 > >> > 34 issues - 1.7.3, 1.8.0 => 1.7.3, 1.8.1 > >> > 102 issues (BUG) - 1.8.0 => 1.8.1 > >> > 248 issues (not BUG) - 1.8.0 => 1.9.1 > >> > > >> > That leaves 3 issues in 1.8.0, I made them blockers > >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4157 (WAL can be > >> > prematurely deleted) > >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4165 (Create a user > >> level > >> > API for RFile) > >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1124 (optimize index > >> size > >> > in RFile) > >> > > >> > Keith has a PR in for 1124. I am looking to put in a PR for 4157 > >> > tomorrow/Sat. Keith, if I need to move 4165 to 1.8.1 let me know. > >> > > >> > >> 1124 is merged. 4165 has a PR. I also created a PR for 4318[1]. While > >> testing the new RFile API I tried to use try-with-resources with a > scanner > >> and found I could not. I think it would be nice to get 4318 into 1.8.0 > >> because its a change that can only be made on a minor release. > >> > >> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO- > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4165>4318 > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Once those are closed/moved, I will cut an RC1. > >> > > >> > Mike > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Christopher, > >> > > > >> > > I'd like to talk this through with you before I move the tickets to > >> make > >> > > sure I understand what you are saying here. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for the note, it is helpful. > >> > > > >> > > Mike > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 9:42 PM Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > After last weeks discussion with Josh, Christopher and others at > the > >> > >> > Accumulo Working Day, I am going to shepherd the 1.8 release. > First > >> > >> step > >> > >> > is to create a release candidate? Before I do that, are there > any > >> > >> tickets > >> > >> > that need to get into the release? I know Keith mentioned 1 or 2 > >> and > >> > I > >> > >> > have one I'd like to finish. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Here is what Jira says is unresolved, > >> > >> > https://s.apache.org/accumulo-1.8-unresolved > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed I would like to move all tickets not identified for the > 1.8 > >> > >> release > >> > >> > to 2.0. Then on Friday I would like to cut the first release > >> > candidate > >> > >> for > >> > >> > 1.8. Is that enough time? Anything I am missing? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Thanks > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Mike > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> I think it's probably time. I don't know that I'd bump the stuff to > >> 2.0. > >> > >> I'd rather bump it to 1.9, just because we've been on a roll with > this > >> > >> backwards compatibility thing, and I think there's probably ongoing > >> > demand > >> > >> for updated 1.x versions. > >> > >> > >> > >> I'll try to go through the issues I've created (or have assigned to > >> me) > >> > >> and > >> > >> bump them myself. So, if you could hold off on that for a few more > >> days, > >> > >> it > >> > >> would help. > >> > >> > >> > >> Also, keep in mind, if you do bump using JIRAs batch features, > you've > >> > got > >> > >> to do it multiple times, depending on if they have more than one > >> > >> fixVersion > >> > >> on them, otherwise you'll overwrite the multiple versions with a > >> single > >> > >> one > >> > >> (or vice versa). > >> > >> > >> > >> Eg. > >> > >> (1.6.6, 1.7.2, 1.8.0) -> (1.6.6, 1.7.2, 1.8.1) // should just be > bug > >> > fixes > >> > >> (1.7.2, 1.8.0) -> (1.7.2, 1.8.1) // should just be bug fixes > >> > >> (1.8.0) -> (1.8.1 or 1.9.0) // depends on if bugfix or feature > >> addition > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > -- > busbey >
