If fixing flaky tests are not in the release plan, its a good idea to move this from release job...As you said it helps to keep the run clean and makes it easy to track unexpected failures.
-Anil. On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Some of tests labeled flaky in 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4 > have since been fixed by Nabarun. I think we should reconcile this revision > with Nabarun's. > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > I’d like merge 8929e93bd129b303aae8f9e1b13daf3c3991d1a4 to the release > > branch. It contains only test changes. Sound reasonable? > > > > Also in that vein, what do you think about not running flakyTest in the > > Jenkins release job [1]. That would give us a clearer picture of test > > results and quality on the release branch. > > > > We should continue to run flakyTest in the nightly Jenkins job. > > > > Anthony > > > > [1] https://builds.apache.org/job/Geode-release/ > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the offer Anthony, > > > I tagged GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 to be fixed in 1.0 and I removed the 1.0 > > tag > > > from GEODE-1793 so that open JIRA issues for 1.0 [1] should now be > > accurate. > > > > > > I have also cut a branch release/1.0.0-incubating from develop on > commit > > > abef045179e5d805cb04bc55a77a82798becdaae for the 1.0 release. Please > > make > > > sure that only issues targeted for 1.0 are fixed on that branch. If you > > are > > > using git flow, use git flow release track 1.0.0-incubating for > switching > > > to the new branch. > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > > > 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating% > > > 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY% > > > 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM, William Markito <wmark...@pivotal.io > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 > > >>> > > >>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> +1 for creating branch now to prevent feature creep. > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I think we should propose creating that release branch sooner > (now?) > > >> so > > >>> we > > >>>>> can minimize unplanned changes slipping into 1.0 and destabilizing > > it. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -Kirk > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Using the gitflow approach, we cut a release/1.0.0 branch to > isolate > > >>> the > > >>>>>> release branch from ongoing development. For past releases we > have > > >>>>> waited > > >>>>>> as long as possible to cut the branch to minimize overhead. > Perhaps > > >>> this > > >>>>>> time we should create the branch earlier. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> JIRA shows the open issues for 1.0.0 [1] but there are some deltas > > >>>>>> compared to the last release scope email [2]. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> GEODE-17 / GEODE-1570 was mentioned as a possible candidate for > > 1.0.0 > > >>> but > > >>>>>> the Fix Version is not set > > >>>>>> GEODE-1168 was not included in the 1.0.0 scope discussions but Fix > > >>>>> Version > > >>>>>> is set to 1.0.0 > > >>>>>> GEODE-1914 is follow on work from the package namespace changes > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> @Swapnil, does this accurately reflect the scope discussions for > > >> 1.0.0? > > >>>>>> If so, I can update the bugs. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Anthony > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > > >>>>>> 3D%20GEODE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0-incubating% > > >>>>>> 20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY% > > >>>>>> 20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-geode- > > >>>>>> dev/201609.mbox/%3cCANZq1gBzMTEM_JHzw2YT_ > > >>> LZeC5g472XkNCfJhma76xah=Yyq6A@ > > >>>>>> mail.gmail.com%3e > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org > > >>>>> <javascript:;>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> What changes are we still waiting on to cut the next RC of Geode > > >> 1.0? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Is there a way to create a branch for Geode 1.0 develop that > allows > > >>>>> folks > > >>>>>>> to continue working on post-1.0 features or bug fixes without > > >>>>>> destabilizing > > >>>>>>> Geode 1.0? This way, only the necessary changes for Geode 1.0 > would > > >> go > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>> the 1.0 branch? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -Kirk > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> ~/William > > >> > > > > >
