yes. I will cut the new RC candidate. - Sijie
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpjunque...@yahoo.com> wrote: > +1 > > > > On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R <rake...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Sijie, > > BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 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 > 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 that it doesn't fail > consistently. > > -Flavio > > > On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R <rake...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Flavio, > > > > I have just noticed one thing, it is configured "3000 milliseconds > timeout". That is too small value. > > Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 60000) and verify the test > case again. > > > > Regards, > > Rakesh > > -----Original 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.a > >>>>>>>> p > >>>>>>>> ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after > >>>>>>>> 3000 milliseconds > > > > I could see the following call can take some amount of time > > Set<LedgerFragment> result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh); > > > > I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis. > Do you have the logs available with you. > > > > Regards, > > Rakesh > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.INVALID] > > Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51 > > To: Sijie Guo > > Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org > > Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? > > > > I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an > entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around: > > > > testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b > > ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000 > > milliseconds > > > >> On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess > that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment. > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira < > fpjunque...@yahoo.com <mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > >> I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the > >> logs of CookieTest > >> > >> Host address: 127.0.0.1 > >> Host name: localhost > >> > >> while in the vm I get this: > >> > >> Host address: 10.0.0.4 > >> Host name: 10.0.0.4 > >> > >> "Host name" is what I get here in Bookie.java: > >> > >> if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) { > >> hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName(); > >> LOG.info("Host name: " + hostAddress); > >> } > >> > >> It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no? > >> > >> -Flavio > >> > >>> On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com <mailto: > guosi...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and > hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are > different. > >>> > >>> We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which > would make the tests more deterministic. > >>> > >>> - Sijie > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira < > fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid <mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid>> > wrote: > >>> Sijie, > >>> The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname > maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing > seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense? > >>> -Flavio > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R <rake...@huawei.com > <mailto:rake...@huawei.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> <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? > >>> > >>> 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 <mailto: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 actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1. > >>>> > >>>> -Flavio > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > >
