Thanks for sorting this Scott, I'm running the tests on 3.0 now. cheers On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alright... pushed! I think this fixes things. Thanks for your patience! > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jordan Zimmerman < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > 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]> > 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) > >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
