[CLOSED] [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release abandoned
Abandoning this vote. 10.1.3.0 release candidate dropped in favor of a new release candidate labelled 10.1.3.1. Voting for 10.1.3.1 is taking place in this thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] andrew
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
On 6/22/06, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew McIntyre wrote: >> Is this a serious enough issue to warrant another release candidate? >> Tests that exercise the issue were not contributed along with the fix, >> and it would be nice to know that this is an issue that is likely to >> be hit in known circumstances. If so, a release note is probably in >> order since it supposedly can cause corruption to a database. H, what would the release note say? "In some situations you can end up with a corrupted database and there's nothing you can do about it. However the problem is fixed and it's in the 10.1 branch, so best you ignore this release and build your own version." Well, if no one really knows how to exercise it, but it is in fact suspected to cause problems then, sure, I'll roll another release candidate with the fix. It would be nice if we knew what circumstances would hit that code path, so we could warn users of previous versions what to do to prevent corrupting their databases. I'll have a new release candidate posted by tomorrow. andrew
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
> Andrew McIntyre wrote: >> Is this a serious enough issue to warrant another release candidate? >> Tests that exercise the issue were not contributed along with the fix, >> and it would be nice to know that this is an issue that is likely to >> be hit in known circumstances. If so, a release note is probably in >> order since it supposedly can cause corruption to a database. H, what would the release note say? "In some situations you can end up with a corrupted database and there's nothing you can do about it. However the problem is fixed and it's in the 10.1 branch, so best you ignore this release and build your own version." :-) Seems like a new release candidate is in order. Dan.
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
+1 Based on test results: http://www.multinet.no/~solberg/public/Apache/index.html Andreas
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Andrew McIntyre wrote: If we have another release candidate, and assuming that the relevant fixes for it can be committed by Friday, are those testing the release candidate comfortable with a 72-hour turnaround on the vote for the new release candidate or will we need another two weeks? I think for DERBY-1392 72 hours is just fine because. 1) Nobody has a test that goes through that code path anyway. 2) If anybody does go through that code path as it stands they get a corrupt db. So it sounds like whatever the fix for DERBY-1392 holds it is only going to be better for users. What else has gone into 10.1.3 since the release candidate? I think it would be the other fixes that would dictate how much additional testing is required. Kathey
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Andrew McIntyre wrote: On 6/20/06, Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike Matrigali wrote: > I would like to see the fix for DERBY-1392 included in the 10.1.3 > release if there is a second release candidate. While the bug > is an edge error case, the result is a corrupt db. I believe > there is little risk as again the path is not one usually taken. > The change has already been fixed in the trunk and the 10.1 branch. +1 to including DERBY-1392 and thanks so much to Anders for finding and fixing this issue! Is this a serious enough issue to warrant another release candidate? Tests that exercise the issue were not contributed along with the fix, and it would be nice to know that this is an issue that is likely to be hit in known circumstances. If so, a release note is probably in order since it supposedly can cause corruption to a database. I believe this is serious enough to warrent another RC. By code inspection as Anders points out it is clear there is a path that could corrupt the db. Another reason I would like to get this in is that in the past there has been a non reproducible case of an unencrypted string getting into a page of an encrypted db with one of our customers on the original cloudscape pre-derby product. We have never been able to reproduce this, but the code for this path is has the same problem in the pre-derby code as the code Anders fixed. Since we never had a reproducible case I can't say this is the fix, but it seems likely. Because the code path depends on a timing I/O exception it is a particularly hard test to write. For this reason I spent extra time reviewing the code and why I felt it was ok to go in without a test. Since 10.2 is around the corner, I am worried that this might be the last official 10.1 release for a long time so would like to see this fix make it.
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Mike Matrigali wrote: I would like to see the fix for DERBY-1392 included in the 10.1.3 release if there is a second release candidate. While the bug is an edge error case, the result is a corrupt db. I believe there is little risk as again the path is not one usually taken. The change has already been fixed in the trunk and the 10.1 branch. /mikem I agree with Mike, DERBY-1392 fix should be included in the second release candidate. Although it happens only on error case; it is good to fix this issue; I think error path mentioned also can be hit when users interrupt thread when derby is writing pages with an InterrupedIOException. Fix is simple, it should not cause any regressions. Thanks -suresht
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Kathey Marsden wrote: Mike Matrigali wrote: I would like to see the fix for DERBY-1392 included in the 10.1.3 release if there is a second release candidate. While the bug is an edge error case, the result is a corrupt db. I believe there is little risk as again the path is not one usually taken. The change has already been fixed in the trunk and the 10.1 branch. +1 to including DERBY-1392 and thanks so much to Anders for finding and fixing this issue! Kathey On the similar lines I would also wish to see DERBY-959 available in 10.1.3, if there is an RC2. The fix looks straight forward and at the same time will allow the Network server to match the newer DRDA spec and work with newer C clients. Regards, -Rajesh
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Andrew McIntyre wrote: > On 6/20/06, Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Mike Matrigali wrote: >> >> > I would like to see the fix for DERBY-1392 included in the 10.1.3 >> > release if there is a second release candidate. While the bug >> > is an edge error case, the result is a corrupt db. I believe >> > there is little risk as again the path is not one usually taken. >> > The change has already been fixed in the trunk and the 10.1 branch. >> >> +1 to including DERBY-1392 and thanks so much to Anders for finding and >> fixing this issue! > > Is this a serious enough issue to warrant another release candidate? I would say no. Although it would have been nice to fix both these bugs, neither of them is an regression. I don't think we should make another RC and start the voting/testing cycle all over again. > Tests that exercise the issue were not contributed along with the fix, > and it would be nice to know that this is an issue that is likely to > be hit in known circumstances. If so, a release note is probably in > order since it supposedly can cause corruption to a database. Yes. 1392 should definitely be documented as a known issue. -- Bernt Marius Johnsen, Database Technology Group, Staff Engineer, Technical Lead Derby/Java DB Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
On 6/20/06, Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike Matrigali wrote: > I would like to see the fix for DERBY-1392 included in the 10.1.3 > release if there is a second release candidate. While the bug > is an edge error case, the result is a corrupt db. I believe > there is little risk as again the path is not one usually taken. > The change has already been fixed in the trunk and the 10.1 branch. +1 to including DERBY-1392 and thanks so much to Anders for finding and fixing this issue! Is this a serious enough issue to warrant another release candidate? Tests that exercise the issue were not contributed along with the fix, and it would be nice to know that this is an issue that is likely to be hit in known circumstances. If so, a release note is probably in order since it supposedly can cause corruption to a database. There is also DERBY-1373, the fix for loading an encrypted database via the jar subprotocol, but due to a recent review by Sunitha [1], it appears that there is more that needs to be done before the patch can be committed. If the contributor (Mathias Herberts) can address the known issues with the patch, then it seems like a very useful fix to have in the release. If you feel these fixes are a requirement for 10.1.3, please speak up. If I get another vote for DERBY-1392, or similar opinions regarding DERBY-1373, then I will take that as consensus and prepare another release candidate. Once we reach consensus on the two issues and get the fix for DERBY-1373 committed if there is consensus for that particular issue, I can generate another release candidate. If we have another release candidate, and assuming that the relevant fixes for it can be committed by Friday, are those testing the release candidate comfortable with a 72-hour turnaround on the vote for the new release candidate or will we need another two weeks? A 72-hour turnaround should allow us to get the new release candidate approved by next Wednesday (assuming a release candidate is posted for a vote on Friday), which would mean that I could still get the release announced to the public by Friday, June 30. A two-week voting period will cause the announce date to be in the second week of July, due to the longer voting period and the 24-hour wait after the vote for confirmation that the release has hit the mirrors. That said, I'm ok with the longer turnaround on the vote, but another two weeks from a vote posted this Friday would mean a publish date of July 10, which is a over a week's departure from the currently posted release date on the wiki, which states June 30. That's a significant difference, so I think we should discuss the pros and cons here. At the moment, I'm leaning toward letting the vote for 10.1.3.0 continue since all current test results are positive, but I can be persuaded otherwise if there is consensus that the fixes mentioned above are a must-have for 10.1.3. andrew [1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1373#action_12417195
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Mike Matrigali wrote: I would like to see the fix for DERBY-1392 included in the 10.1.3 release if there is a second release candidate. While the bug is an edge error case, the result is a corrupt db. I believe there is little risk as again the path is not one usually taken. The change has already been fixed in the trunk and the 10.1 branch. +1 to including DERBY-1392 and thanks so much to Anders for finding and fixing this issue! Kathey
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
I would like to see the fix for DERBY-1392 included in the 10.1.3 release if there is a second release candidate. While the bug is an edge error case, the result is a corrupt db. I believe there is little risk as again the path is not one usually taken. The change has already been fixed in the trunk and the 10.1 branch. /mikem
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
On 6/19/06, Bryan Pendleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm still getting the Forbidden error on http://people.apache.org/~fuzzylogic/10.1.3.0/db-derby-10.1.3.0-bin.zip Fixed (again). Thanks for spotting that. andrew
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Andrew McIntyre wrote: > There was a permissions problem with this particular file on the > server. It appears one of my sftp clients deposits files on the remote > server with bad permissions. > > I've corrected the permissions. You should be able to download the > files now. Please let me know if you still can't. Hi Andrew, I'm still getting the Forbidden error on http://people.apache.org/~fuzzylogic/10.1.3.0/db-derby-10.1.3.0-bin.zip thanks, bryan
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Mathias Herberts wrote: Thank you for reporting the issue and contributing the fix. Sorry, it wasn't on my personal radar and wasn't marked Fix In 10.1.3.0 for JIRA so I didn't take notice of it. There's a lot going on in the dev list, so it helps to be loud about your contribution if it appears no one is paying attention to it right away. I'll yell next time ;-) Please yell now. I don't have much in the way of skills in this area so can only yell with you. Also, ask for developer access if you don't have it and assign yourself to DERBY-1373 it will show up more prominently on the list. It would be great to see this and other great patches get up to 10.1 in case there is an RC2 . Regardless it will be in the next 10.1 snapshot and in a place where users can get it to use it opposed to 10.2 with the alpha flag. I hope there are reviewers in the community that can look at the patches below in particular: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1373 Encrypted databases cannot be booted using the jar subprotocol (and possibly also using http/https/classpath) http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-578 Grouped select from temporary table raises null pointer exception in byte code generator http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1392 Corner case behaviour in RAFContainer#writePage() can cause invalid data to be written to data files Who wants to keep any of this stuff sitting in the product? Non-commtters, please review patches. It is a great way to earn merit and will give committers more time to commit. Many other patches waiting attention at: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?filterid=12310751&mapper=assignees&selectedProjectId=10594&reportKey=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.reports%3Asinglelevelgroupby&Next=Next Kathey
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
On 6/13/06, Mathias Herberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What bothered me most was my inability to modify my report once the issue was created. This is mentioned in the Community tab's "Provide Feedback" section: http://db.apache.org/derby/derby_comm.html#Provide+Feedback "To update existing issues, email your Jira userid to derby-dev@db.apache.org and request that it be added to the derby-developers Jira list." But maybe this isn't the most obvious place for this information. I've added your userid (herberts) to the derby-developers group in JIRA, so you should now be able to edit and update Derby JIRA issues. cheers, andrew
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Thank you for reporting the issue and contributing the fix. Sorry, it wasn't on my personal radar and wasn't marked Fix In 10.1.3.0 for JIRA so I didn't take notice of it. There's a lot going on in the dev list, so it helps to be loud about your contribution if it appears no one is paying attention to it right away. I'll yell next time ;-) If there's a problem with this release candidate and we need to start the voting over, we can probably get it into this release. Otherwise, I'd like to continue the release vote on the proposed release candidate as it is. It seems I am alone on our planet needing this fix, as I can perfectly apply it myself onto the current RC for 10.1.3.0 I do not see a need for its immediate inclusion. The voting process can therefore continue on the proposed RC. p.s. maybe we should make a note on the 'tips for contributors' page that people mark the Fix In (and not just the Affects field) for the next appropriate release once you've contributed a fix? What bothered me most was my inability to modify my report once the issue was created. Mathias.
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
On 6/13/06, Mathias Herberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I created issue DERBY-1373 on june second, I reported it as affecting 10.1.2.4 but I just checked your RC for 10.1.3.0 and the issue is still there. My report for the issue includes a (quick and dirty) fix for it so it might be included in 10.1.3.0 rather fast if someone reviews it. Hi Mathias, Thank you for reporting the issue and contributing the fix. Sorry, it wasn't on my personal radar and wasn't marked Fix In 10.1.3.0 for JIRA so I didn't take notice of it. There's a lot going on in the dev list, so it helps to be loud about your contribution if it appears no one is paying attention to it right away. If there's a problem with this release candidate and we need to start the voting over, we can probably get it into this release. Otherwise, I'd like to continue the release vote on the proposed release candidate as it is. I've marked the issue with a Fix In of 10.2.0.0 so that it's definitely on the radar for the next anticipated release. andrew p.s. maybe we should make a note on the 'tips for contributors' page that people mark the Fix In (and not just the Affects field) for the next appropriate release once you've contributed a fix?
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
JIRA shows no more open 10.1.3.0 issues. Test results from the weekend look good with only intermittent failures. Hi, I created issue DERBY-1373 on june second, I reported it as affecting 10.1.2.4 but I just checked your RC for 10.1.3.0 and the issue is still there. My report for the issue includes a (quick and dirty) fix for it so it might be included in 10.1.3.0 rather fast if someone reviews it. Mathias.
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
On 6/13/06, Manjula G Kutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not able to download the files. It says Forbidden You don't have permission to access /~fuzzylogic/10.1.3.0/db-derby-10.1.3.0-bin.zip on this server. Apache/2.2.0 (Unix) SVN/1.3.1-dev mod_ssl/2.2.0 OpenSSL/0.9.7e-p1 DAV/2 Server at people.apache.org Port 80 Can you please let me know whether I have to do anything specific to get the files?? There was a permissions problem with this particular file on the server. It appears one of my sftp clients deposits files on the remote server with bad permissions. I've corrected the permissions. You should be able to download the files now. Please let me know if you still can't. Thanks, andrew
Re: [VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Andrew McIntyre wrote: Hello derby-dev, JIRA shows no more open 10.1.3.0 issues. Test results from the weekend look good with only intermittent failures. So, I have posted a release candidate for the 10.1.3.0 release here: http://people.apache.org/~fuzzylogic/10.1.3.0/ Please cast your vote for approval/disapproval of this release candidate. I will close the voting in two weeks, on June 27th, at 5:00 pm PDT. There are not currently signatures for the -bin zip file, as I had to reroll that distribution to fix a problem with the PDF files. Those should appear within the hour. Also, there is not a new zip file for the Eclipse UI plugin, as it does not appear that the UI plugin has changed since 10.1.2.1. If someone familiar with the Eclipse UI plugin could verify that, and rebuild it if there have actually been changes, that would be great. I will begin putting together the release notes page based on the information in JIRA tomorrow, and I will post a copy for review before the voting is completed. A big thanks to everyone for their hard work on this release! Oh yes, and my vote: +1 andrew Hi Andrew, I'm not able to download the files. It says Forbidden You don't have permission to access /~fuzzylogic/10.1.3.0/db-derby-10.1.3.0-bin.zip on this server. Apache/2.2.0 (Unix) SVN/1.3.1-dev mod_ssl/2.2.0 OpenSSL/0.9.7e-p1 DAV/2 Server at people.apache.org Port 80 Can you please let me know whether I have to do anything specific to get the files?? Thanks Manjula
[VOTE] 10.1.3.0 release
Hello derby-dev, JIRA shows no more open 10.1.3.0 issues. Test results from the weekend look good with only intermittent failures. So, I have posted a release candidate for the 10.1.3.0 release here: http://people.apache.org/~fuzzylogic/10.1.3.0/ Please cast your vote for approval/disapproval of this release candidate. I will close the voting in two weeks, on June 27th, at 5:00 pm PDT. There are not currently signatures for the -bin zip file, as I had to reroll that distribution to fix a problem with the PDF files. Those should appear within the hour. Also, there is not a new zip file for the Eclipse UI plugin, as it does not appear that the UI plugin has changed since 10.1.2.1. If someone familiar with the Eclipse UI plugin could verify that, and rebuild it if there have actually been changes, that would be great. I will begin putting together the release notes page based on the information in JIRA tomorrow, and I will post a copy for review before the voting is completed. A big thanks to everyone for their hard work on this release! Oh yes, and my vote: +1 andrew
