Sounds good - go ahead.
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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]
> <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>>
>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]
>> > <mailto:[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]
>> > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
>> >>>> <mailto:[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]
>> >>>> <mailto:[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
>> >>>
>> >>> <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
>> >>>
>> >>> <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/2.10.0/>
>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>> >>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>> >>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020>
>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>> >>> <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
>> >>>
>> >>> <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
>> >>>
>> >>> <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
>> >>>>> <http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
