Generally, fixver has only been set during commits - I only marked 3.10 and blocker status to highlight the few that failed votes, in order to sort of cheerlead "fix me so we can release!" JIRA tickets. The full test-failure list is probably the more "realistic" view, since any of those may occur. As I also just replied, an auth_test method is the current failure on c-3.11 branch. Mark it as a blocker? Re-run the job and hope for green? Unmark the current 3.10 fixver blockers, since they didn't fail? (Likely to get some other failure or maybe a full pass)
-- Michael On 01/10/2017 10:56 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > I assume you meant the query w/out 12617 embedded? > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203.10%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved > > Do we have confidence that all test failures have fixVersion attached > correctly? The list of test failures w/out fixVersion is pretty daunting: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20labels%20in%20(test%2C%20test-failure%2C%20dtest%2C%20unittest)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixversion%20%3D%20null%20and%20labels%20!%3D%20windows%20ORDER%20BY%20created%20asc > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> I concede it would be fine to do it gradually. Once the pace of issues >>> introduced by new development is beaten by the pace at which they are >>> addressed I think things will go well. >> >> So from Michael's JIRA query: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12617? >> jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203. >> 10%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved >> >> Are we good for 3.10 after we get those cleaned up? >> >> Ariel, you made reference to: >> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/commit/c612cd8d7dbd24888c216ad53f9746 >> 86b88dd601 >> >> Do we need to re-open an issue to have this applied to 3.10 and add it >> to the above list? >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: >>>> >>>> Sankalp's proposal of us progressively tightening up our standards >> allows >>>> us to get code out the door and regain some lost momentum on the 3.10 >>>> release failures and blocking, and gives us time as a community to >> adjust >>>> our behavior without the burden of an ever-later slipped release hanging >>>> over our heads. There's plenty of bugfixes in the 3.X line; the more >> time >>>> people can have to kick the tires on that code, the more things we can >>>> find >>>> and the better future releases will be. >> >> >> +1 On gradually moving to this. Dropping releases with huge change >> lists has never gone well for us in the past. >> >
