I want to push a commit to master, merge master into 3.0, and then push another commit into 3.0. I think this will fix TestTreeCache and also generally make that test fail faster if we write a bad test in the future.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
