I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is creating pollution.. working on this now.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < [email protected]> wrote: > I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this release. > > -Jordan > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually let me clarify.. > > +1 on 2.10.0 > -1 on 3.1.0 > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today). >> Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate >> subject. >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0. >>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Should we cancel the release? Scott? >>>> >>>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > +1 >>>> > >>>> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0 branch >>>> > though. >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more >>>> reliable >>>> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this >>>> also. >>>> >> cheers >>>> >> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>>> >> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this >>>> in the >>>> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been >>>> the case >>>> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -JZ >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Keys verify OK. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2.10.0: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but >>>> >>> passed >>>> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3.1.0: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Failed tests: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache) >>>> >>>> Run 1: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170 >>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] >>>> but >>>> >>> found >>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED] >>>> >>>> Run 2: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178 >>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test', >>>> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2 >>>> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one] >>>> but >>>> >>>> found [/test] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache) >>>> >>>> Run 1: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170 >>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] >>>> but >>>> >>> found >>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED] >>>> >>>> Run 2: PASS >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 >>>> and >>>> >>> 3.1.0 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are >>>> >>>>> provided for convenience. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Link to release notes: >>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 - >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942 >>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 - >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Staging repos: >>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/ >>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/ >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Binary artifacts: >>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 - >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020 >>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 - >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon: >>>> >>>>> 2.10.0 - >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521 >>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 - >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the >>>> release: >>>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
