Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Are you going to cut from 4.3.1 from master or branch-4.3? IMO, since
there's been no big feature nor breaking change, it should come from
master (and branch-4.3 should be deleted until it is actually needed).
-Ivan
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
yes. I will cut the new RC candidate.
- Sijie
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Flavio Junqueira fpjunque...@yahoo.com
wrote:
+1
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi Sijie,
BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is
marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1
Shall we go ahead with the release ?
Best Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com]
Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34
To: Rakesh R
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Sijie Guo
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not
be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase
rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail
consistently.
-Flavio
On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi Flavio,
I have just noticed one thing, it is configured 3000 milliseconds
timeout. That is too small value.
Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 6) and verify the test
case again.
Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Rakesh R
Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Cc: Sijie Guo
Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
Hi Flavio,
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a
p
ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
3000 milliseconds
I could see the following call can take some amount of time
SetLedgerFragment result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis.
Do you have the logs available with you.
Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
To: Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an
entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b
ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000
milliseconds
On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess
that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the
logs of CookieTest
Host address: 127.0.0.1
Host name: localhost
while in the vm I get this:
Host address: 10.0.0.4
Host name: 10.0.0.4
Host name is what I get here in Bookie.java:
if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
LOG.info(Host name: + hostAddress);
}
It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
-Flavio
On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com mailto:
guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and
hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are
different.
We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which
would make the tests more deterministic.
- Sijie
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid
wrote:
Sijie,
The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname
maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing
seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
-Flavio
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com
mailto:rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing
one test case failure.
-Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosi...@gmail.com
mailto:guosi...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org mailto:dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address
those tests for producing the new RC.
- Sijie
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid
wrote:
Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release
4.3.1?
I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
-Flavio
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I am cutting 4.3.1 from branch 4.3. as we already cut 4.3.0, I'd think we
should release 4.3.1 from branch 4.3 rather than from master. otherwise, it
is a bit confused for maintaining. we could focus on 4.4 and move on from
4.3 after this.
btw, the last jira for 4.3.1:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-854 could anyone review it?
- Sijie
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Ivan Kelly iv...@apache.org wrote:
Are you going to cut from 4.3.1 from master or branch-4.3? IMO, since
there's been no big feature nor breaking change, it should come from
master (and branch-4.3 should be deleted until it is actually needed).
-Ivan
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
yes. I will cut the new RC candidate.
- Sijie
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Flavio Junqueira fpjunque...@yahoo.com
wrote:
+1
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com
wrote:
Hi Sijie,
BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is
marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1
Shall we go ahead with the release ?
Best Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com]
Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34
To: Rakesh R
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Sijie Guo
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might
not
be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to
increase
rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail
consistently.
-Flavio
On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi Flavio,
I have just noticed one thing, it is configured 3000 milliseconds
timeout. That is too small value.
Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 6) and verify the test
case again.
Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Rakesh R
Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Cc: Sijie Guo
Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
Hi Flavio,
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a
p
ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
3000 milliseconds
I could see the following call can take some amount of time
SetLedgerFragment result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the
analysis.
Do you have the logs available with you.
Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
To: Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an
entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b
ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000
milliseconds
On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I
guess
that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the
logs of CookieTest
Host address: 127.0.0.1
Host name: localhost
while in the vm I get this:
Host address: 10.0.0.4
Host name: 10.0.0.4
Host name is what I get here in Bookie.java:
if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
hostAddress =
inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
LOG.info(Host name: + hostAddress);
}
It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
-Flavio
On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com mailto:
guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP
and
hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname
are
different.
We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which
would make the tests more deterministic.
- Sijie
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid
wrote:
Sijie,
The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the
hostname
maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are
failing
seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
-Flavio
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R
rake...@huawei.com
mailto:rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing
one test case failure.
-Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosi
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
yes. I will cut the new RC candidate.
- Sijie
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Flavio Junqueira fpjunque...@yahoo.com
wrote:
+1
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 9:57 AM, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi Sijie,
BOOKKEEPER-836 has been resolved. Now, we have only BOOKKEEPER-835 is
marked for this release and we have got two +1s and no -1
Shall we go ahead with the release ?
Best Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com]
Sent: 21 March 2015 03:34
To: Rakesh R
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org; Sijie Guo
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not
be enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase
rather than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail
consistently.
-Flavio
On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi Flavio,
I have just noticed one thing, it is configured 3000 milliseconds
timeout. That is too small value.
Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 6) and verify the test
case again.
Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Rakesh R
Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Cc: Sijie Guo
Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
Hi Flavio,
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.a
p
ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
3000 milliseconds
I could see the following call can take some amount of time
SetLedgerFragment result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis.
Do you have the logs available with you.
Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
To: Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an
entry to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.b
ookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after 3000
milliseconds
On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess
that might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the
logs of CookieTest
Host address: 127.0.0.1
Host name: localhost
while in the vm I get this:
Host address: 10.0.0.4
Host name: 10.0.0.4
Host name is what I get here in Bookie.java:
if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
LOG.info(Host name: + hostAddress);
}
It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
-Flavio
On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com mailto:
guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and
hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are
different.
We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which
would make the tests more deterministic.
- Sijie
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid
wrote:
Sijie,
The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname
maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing
seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
-Flavio
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com
mailto:rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing
one test case failure.
-Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosi...@gmail.com
mailto:guosi...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org mailto:dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address
those tests for producing the new RC.
- Sijie
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid
wrote:
Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release
4.3.1?
I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
-Flavio
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I have uploaded the logs to BK-846. Having the timeout set to 3s might not be
enough, but I'd like to understand if it is really necessary to increase rather
than increasing arbitrarily. I have checked that it doesn't fail consistently.
-Flavio
On 20 Mar 2015, at 12:10, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi Flavio,
I have just noticed one thing, it is configured 3000 milliseconds timeout.
That is too small value.
Can you please increase to @Test(timeout = 6) and verify the test case
again.
Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Rakesh R
Sent: 20 March 2015 15:50
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Cc: Sijie Guo
Subject: RE: RC for 4.3.1?
Hi Flavio,
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.ap
ache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker): test timed out after
3000 milliseconds
I could see the following call can take some amount of time
SetLedgerFragment result = getUnderReplicatedFragments(lh);
I think, will get some hint if you can get the logs and do the analysis. Do
you have the logs available with you.
Regards,
Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.INVALID]
Sent: 20 March 2015 13:51
To: Sijie Guo
Cc: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I've actually been able to get most of the tests to pass by adding an entry
to /etc/hosts. I got only different test failure this time around:
testShouldGetTwoFrgamentsIfTwoBookiesFailedInSameEnsemble(org.apache.bookkeeper.client.TestLedgerChecker):
test timed out after 3000 milliseconds
On 19 Mar 2015, at 22:54, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
Yup. But it seems that your vm returns IP address as hostname. I guess that
might be related your vm's DNS entry in cloud environment.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Flavio Junqueira fpjunque...@yahoo.com
mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the logs
of CookieTest
Host address: 127.0.0.1
Host name: localhost
while in the vm I get this:
Host address: 10.0.0.4
Host name: 10.0.0.4
Host name is what I get here in Bookie.java:
if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
LOG.info(Host name: + hostAddress);
}
It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
-Flavio
On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com
mailto:guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and
hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are
different.
We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would
make the tests more deterministic.
- Sijie
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid
wrote:
Sijie,
The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps
to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem
to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
-Flavio
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com
mailto:rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one
test case failure.
-Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosi...@gmail.com
mailto:guosi...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org mailto:dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those
tests for producing the new RC.
- Sijie
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
-Flavio
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I'm not sure this is right. When I run locally, I get this in the logs of
CookieTest
Host address: 127.0.0.1
Host name: localhost
while in the vm I get this:
Host address: 10.0.0.4
Host name: 10.0.0.4
Host name is what I get here in Bookie.java:
if (conf.getUseHostNameAsBookieID()) {
hostAddress = inetAddr.getAddress().getCanonicalHostName();
LOG.info(Host name: + hostAddress);
}
It shouldn't be returning the IP address, no?
-Flavio
On 19 Mar 2015, at 17:08, Sijie Guo guosi...@gmail.com wrote:
The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and
hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are
different.
We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would make
the tests more deterministic.
- Sijie
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid mailto:fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
Sijie,
The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps
to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to
expect that they are the same. Does it make sense?
-Flavio
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com
mailto:rake...@huawei.com wrote:
Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test
case failure.
-Rakesh
-Original Message-
From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosi...@gmail.com mailto:guosi...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23
To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org mailto:dev@bookkeeper.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1?
I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those
tests for producing the new RC.
- Sijie
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira
fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:
Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1?
I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1.
-Flavio
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
Sijie, The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense? -Flavio On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com wrote: Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure. -Rakesh -Original Message- From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosi...@gmail.com] Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23 To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC. - Sijie On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote: Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1? I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1. -Flavio
Re: RC for 4.3.1?
The hostname in that host will be resolved to be IP, which the IP and hostname would be same. But the tests expect that the IP and hostname are different. We should change the tool to allow passing in any bookie id, which would make the tests more deterministic. - Sijie On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Flavio Junqueira fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote: Sijie, The problem seems to be that the public address (the one the hostname maps to) and the virtual network are different. The tests that are failing seem to expect that they are the same. Does it make sense? -Flavio On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:12 AM, Rakesh R rake...@huawei.com wrote: Can we include BOOKKEEPER-834 fix also in 4.3.1, this is addressing one test case failure. -Rakesh -Original Message- From: Sijie Guo [mailto:guosi...@gmail.com] Sent: 18 March 2015 10:23 To: dev@bookkeeper.apache.org Subject: Re: RC for 4.3.1? I think RC0 is failed because of the failed tests. We need to address those tests for producing the new RC. - Sijie On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Flavio Junqueira fpjunque...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote: Do we have a code freeze on branch 4.3 right now because of release 4.3.1? I'm actually not sure what's going on with the RC0 of 4.3.1. -Flavio
