On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote:
> It is interesting that 1.2.x won't hang. > There is no difference between the files you have on your branch, and the files in the release tarball. You can verify this yourself by following the steps here: http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Test_procedure How may times have you tested this? If you run "make check" on the branch 5 times, how many fail? If you run "make check" from the tarball 5 times, how many file? The question here is whether `make check` passing in R15B is a release > requirement. In my vote I considered no, but I am happy to go with a > community decision if it emerges. What is your take here? > Yes, this is a release blocker. > In addition, this just shouldn't be a question, so we should investigate > why this happens at all and address the issue, hence COUCHDB-1424. Any > insight here would be appreciated as well. Agreed. > > > In the command line tests, 2,7, 27, and 32 fail. but it differs from run > to run. > > I assume you mean the JS tests. Again, this isn't supposed to work in > 1.2.x. I'm happy to backport my changes from master to 1.2.x to make that > work, but I refrained from that because I didn't want to bring too much > change to a release branch. I'm happy to reconsider, but I don't think a > release vote is a good place to discuss feature backports. Jan, I am starting to think of our release vote rounds as release candidates. In so much as, the activity they seem to kick-off seems to be the sort of activity you hope to kick off with a regular release candidate. Does that make sense? Within that context, I think it's fine to talk about stuff like this. A release voting round is a prompt for people to get their shit together. > > On Chrome attachment_ranges fails and it hangs on replicator_db > > This one is an "explaining away", but I think it is warranted. Chrome is > broken for attachment_ranges. I don't know if we reported this upstream > (Robert N?), but this isn't a release blocker. For the replicator_db test, > can you try running that in other browsers. I understand it is not the best > of situation (hence the move to the cli test suite for master), but if you > get this test to pass in at least one other browsers, this isn't a problem > that holds 1.2.x. We only support Firefox with the test suite. What am I missing?
