Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Michael McCandless]

Can you start a new thread with this question?  Thanks.


Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Anurag Sharma  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Not sure this is the right thread to ask this question. Suggest me if I
> need to open another thread.
>
> I am running smokeTestRelease.py first time on my local machine in the
> context of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6474 and
> understanding how the smoke test can be launched using the script.
>
> First I was running it using Python-27 and faced SyntaxError issues and
> got rid of them when tried with Python 3.4.2.
>
> Now getting error when am trying to run smoke using command below:
> python -u smokeTestRelease.py
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC1-rev1634293
>
> Java 1.7 JAVA_HOME=C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_51
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "smokeTestRelease.py", line 1522, in 
> main()
>   File "smokeTestRelease.py", line 1465, in main
> c = parse_config()
>   File "smokeTestRelease.py", line 1351, in parse_config
> c.java = make_java_config(parser, c.test_java8)
>   File "smokeTestRelease.py", line 1303, in make_java_config
> run_java7 = _make_runner(java7_home, '1.7')
>   File "smokeTestRelease.py", line 1294, in _make_runner
> shell=True, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT).decode('utf-8')
>   File "C:\Program Files (x86)\Python34\lib\subprocess.py", line 620, in
> check_output
> raise CalledProcessError(retcode, process.args, output=output)
> subprocess.CalledProcessError: Command 'export JAVA_HOME="C:\Program
> Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_51" PATH="C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_51/bin:$PATH"
> JAVACMD="C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_51/bin/java"; java -version'
> returned non-zero exit status 1
>
> The only usage example I find in the code is it takes a URL param and it's
> giving the above error:
> Example usage:
> python3.2 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> http://people.apache.org/~whoever/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC1-rev1469340
>
> Please suggest if I am missing anything (path/env setting) while running
> through URL param in the above fashion. Also, is there a way I can run the
> smoke locally without giving URL params.
>
> Thanks
> Anurag
>
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> This constant is gone as of 5.x (LUCENE-5900): good riddance ;)
>>
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>>
>>> I think we should do this also in 5.x and trunk. I am not sure if the
>>> problem exists there, too, but that would make it easier.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is only one reason why you _*could*_ make those versions
>>> explicit: If you want to prevent users mixing the test framework with an
>>> incorrect version of Lucene (e.g. use test-franework version 4.10.0 with
>>> Lucene 4.10.2). But we have no check for this, so this is theoretical…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uwe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Uwe Schindler
>>>
>>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>>>
>>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>>>
>>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM
>>> *To:* Lucene/Solr dev
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1, I'll just do that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike McCandless
>>>
>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not set the constant in LTC to LUCENE_LATEST? It is no longer an
>>> enum, so there is no need to set it explicit. Version.LUCENE_LATEST
>>> explicitely points to latest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uwe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Uwe Schindler
>>>
>>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>>>
>>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>>>
>>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
>>> *Sent:* Sund

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Anurag Sharma]

Hi,

Not sure this is the right thread to ask this question. Suggest me if I
need to open another thread.

I am running smokeTestRelease.py first time on my local machine in the
context of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6474 and
understanding how the smoke test can be launched using the script.

First I was running it using Python-27 and faced SyntaxError issues and got
rid of them when tried with Python 3.4.2.

Now getting error when am trying to run smoke using command below:
python -u smokeTestRelease.py
http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC1-rev1634293

Java 1.7 JAVA_HOME=C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_51
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "smokeTestRelease.py", line 1522, in 
main()
  File "smokeTestRelease.py", line 1465, in main
c = parse_config()
  File "smokeTestRelease.py", line 1351, in parse_config
c.java = make_java_config(parser, c.test_java8)
  File "smokeTestRelease.py", line 1303, in make_java_config
run_java7 = _make_runner(java7_home, '1.7')
  File "smokeTestRelease.py", line 1294, in _make_runner
shell=True, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT).decode('utf-8')
  File "C:\Program Files (x86)\Python34\lib\subprocess.py", line 620, in
check_output
raise CalledProcessError(retcode, process.args, output=output)
subprocess.CalledProcessError: Command 'export JAVA_HOME="C:\Program
Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_51" PATH="C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_51/bin:$PATH"
JAVACMD="C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_51/bin/java"; java -version'
returned non-zero exit status 1

The only usage example I find in the code is it takes a URL param and it's
giving the above error:
Example usage:
python3.2 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
http://people.apache.org/~whoever/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC1-rev1469340

Please suggest if I am missing anything (path/env setting) while running
through URL param in the above fashion. Also, is there a way I can run the
smoke locally without giving URL params.

Thanks
Anurag

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> This constant is gone as of 5.x (LUCENE-5900): good riddance ;)
>
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>
>> I think we should do this also in 5.x and trunk. I am not sure if the
>> problem exists there, too, but that would make it easier.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is only one reason why you _*could*_ make those versions explicit:
>> If you want to prevent users mixing the test framework with an incorrect
>> version of Lucene (e.g. use test-franework version 4.10.0 with Lucene
>> 4.10.2). But we have no check for this, so this is theoretical…
>>
>>
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Uwe Schindler
>>
>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>>
>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>>
>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM
>> *To:* Lucene/Solr dev
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0
>>
>>
>>
>> +1, I'll just do that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>>
>> Why not set the constant in LTC to LUCENE_LATEST? It is no longer an
>> enum, so there is no need to set it explicit. Version.LUCENE_LATEST
>> explicitely points to latest.
>>
>>
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Uwe Schindler
>>
>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>>
>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>>
>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:38 AM
>> *To:* Lucene/Solr dev; Simon Willnauer
>> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0
>>
>>
>>
>> Argh.  Why does no Lucene test fail ...
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll add a failing test, fix the constant, respin.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Simon Willnauer <
>> simon.willna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think we need to respin here - I upgraded ES and I got some failures
>> since the
>>
>>
>>
>> LuceneTestCase#TEST_VERSION_CURRENT is still 4.10.1
>>
&

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Michael McCandless]

This constant is gone as of 5.x (LUCENE-5900): good riddance ;)


Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:

> I think we should do this also in 5.x and trunk. I am not sure if the
> problem exists there, too, but that would make it easier.
>
>
>
> There is only one reason why you _*could*_ make those versions explicit:
> If you want to prevent users mixing the test framework with an incorrect
> version of Lucene (e.g. use test-franework version 4.10.0 with Lucene
> 4.10.2). But we have no check for this, so this is theoretical…
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>
> http://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM
> *To:* Lucene/Solr dev
>
> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0
>
>
>
> +1, I'll just do that.
>
>
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>
> Why not set the constant in LTC to LUCENE_LATEST? It is no longer an enum,
> so there is no need to set it explicit. Version.LUCENE_LATEST explicitely
> points to latest.
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>
> http://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:38 AM
> *To:* Lucene/Solr dev; Simon Willnauer
> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0
>
>
>
> Argh.  Why does no Lucene test fail ...
>
>
>
> I'll add a failing test, fix the constant, respin.
>
>
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Simon Willnauer <
> simon.willna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think we need to respin here - I upgraded ES and I got some failures
> since the
>
>
>
> LuceneTestCase#TEST_VERSION_CURRENT is still 4.10.1
>
>
>
> see:
>
>
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_10/lucene/test-framework/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/LuceneTestCase.java
>
>
>
> i am not sure if this has impact on anything but it's definitely wrong no?
> I think there should be a test in lucene that checks if this version points
> to `Versoin.LATEST`?
>
>
>
> simon
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
>
> SUCCESS! [1:05:35.187369]
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
> Artifacts:
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
>
> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
>
> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
>
> Here's my +1
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Anshum Gupta*
>
> about.me/anshumgupta
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Uwe Schindler]

Ignore my comment, constant is gone in trunk and 5.x.

 

Uwe

 

-

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

 

From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] 
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:30 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

 

I think we should do this also in 5.x and trunk. I am not sure if the problem 
exists there, too, but that would make it easier.

 

There is only one reason why you _could_ make those versions explicit: If you 
want to prevent users mixing the test framework with an incorrect version of 
Lucene (e.g. use test-franework version 4.10.0 with Lucene 4.10.2). But we have 
no check for this, so this is theoretical…

 

Uwe

 

-

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

 

From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM
To: Lucene/Solr dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

 

+1, I'll just do that.





Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

 

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:

Why not set the constant in LTC to LUCENE_LATEST? It is no longer an enum, so 
there is no need to set it explicit. Version.LUCENE_LATEST explicitely points 
to latest.

 

Uwe

 

-

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

 

From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:38 AM
To: Lucene/Solr dev; Simon Willnauer
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

 

Argh.  Why does no Lucene test fail ...

 

I'll add a failing test, fix the constant, respin.





Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

 

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Simon Willnauer  
wrote:

I think we need to respin here - I upgraded ES and I got some failures since the

 

LuceneTestCase#TEST_VERSION_CURRENT is still 4.10.1

 

see:

 

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_10/lucene/test-framework/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/LuceneTestCase.java

 

i am not sure if this has impact on anything but it's definitely wrong no? I 
think there should be a test in lucene that checks if this version points to 
`Versoin.LATEST`?

 

simon

 

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:

+1

 

SUCCESS! [1:05:35.187369]

 

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Michael McCandless  
wrote:

Artifacts: 
http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/

Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True

SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]

Here's my +1

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org





 

-- 





Anshum Gupta


about.me/anshumgupta

  

 

 

 

RE: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Uwe Schindler]

I think we should do this also in 5.x and trunk. I am not sure if the problem 
exists there, too, but that would make it easier.

 

There is only one reason why you _could_ make those versions explicit: If you 
want to prevent users mixing the test framework with an incorrect version of 
Lucene (e.g. use test-franework version 4.10.0 with Lucene 4.10.2). But we have 
no check for this, so this is theoretical…

 

Uwe

 

-

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

 

From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM
To: Lucene/Solr dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

 

+1, I'll just do that.





Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

 

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:

Why not set the constant in LTC to LUCENE_LATEST? It is no longer an enum, so 
there is no need to set it explicit. Version.LUCENE_LATEST explicitely points 
to latest.

 

Uwe

 

-

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

 

From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:38 AM
To: Lucene/Solr dev; Simon Willnauer
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

 

Argh.  Why does no Lucene test fail ...

 

I'll add a failing test, fix the constant, respin.





Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

 

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Simon Willnauer  
wrote:

I think we need to respin here - I upgraded ES and I got some failures since the

 

LuceneTestCase#TEST_VERSION_CURRENT is still 4.10.1

 

see:

 

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_10/lucene/test-framework/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/LuceneTestCase.java

 

i am not sure if this has impact on anything but it's definitely wrong no? I 
think there should be a test in lucene that checks if this version points to 
`Versoin.LATEST`?

 

simon

 

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:

+1

 

SUCCESS! [1:05:35.187369]

 

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Michael McCandless  
wrote:

Artifacts: 
http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/

Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True

SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]

Here's my +1

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org





 

-- 





Anshum Gupta


about.me/anshumgupta

  

 

 

 

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Michael McCandless]

+1, I'll just do that.


Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:

> Why not set the constant in LTC to LUCENE_LATEST? It is no longer an enum,
> so there is no need to set it explicit. Version.LUCENE_LATEST explicitely
> points to latest.
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>
> http://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:38 AM
> *To:* Lucene/Solr dev; Simon Willnauer
> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0
>
>
>
> Argh.  Why does no Lucene test fail ...
>
>
>
> I'll add a failing test, fix the constant, respin.
>
>
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Simon Willnauer <
> simon.willna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think we need to respin here - I upgraded ES and I got some failures
> since the
>
>
>
> LuceneTestCase#TEST_VERSION_CURRENT is still 4.10.1
>
>
>
> see:
>
>
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_10/lucene/test-framework/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/LuceneTestCase.java
>
>
>
> i am not sure if this has impact on anything but it's definitely wrong no?
> I think there should be a test in lucene that checks if this version points
> to `Versoin.LATEST`?
>
>
>
> simon
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
>
> SUCCESS! [1:05:35.187369]
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
> Artifacts:
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
>
> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
>
> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
>
> Here's my +1
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Anshum Gupta*
>
> about.me/anshumgupta
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Uwe Schindler]

Why not set the constant in LTC to LUCENE_LATEST? It is no longer an enum, so 
there is no need to set it explicit. Version.LUCENE_LATEST explicitely points 
to latest.

 

Uwe

 

-

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

 

From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:38 AM
To: Lucene/Solr dev; Simon Willnauer
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

 

Argh.  Why does no Lucene test fail ...

 

I'll add a failing test, fix the constant, respin.





Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

 

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Simon Willnauer  
wrote:

I think we need to respin here - I upgraded ES and I got some failures since the

 

LuceneTestCase#TEST_VERSION_CURRENT is still 4.10.1

 

see:

 

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_10/lucene/test-framework/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/LuceneTestCase.java

 

i am not sure if this has impact on anything but it's definitely wrong no? I 
think there should be a test in lucene that checks if this version points to 
`Versoin.LATEST`?

 

simon

 

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:

+1

 

SUCCESS! [1:05:35.187369]

 

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Michael McCandless  
wrote:

Artifacts: 
http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/

Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True

SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]

Here's my +1

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org





 

-- 





Anshum Gupta


about.me/anshumgupta

  

 

 

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Michael McCandless]

Argh.  Why does no Lucene test fail ...

I'll add a failing test, fix the constant, respin.


Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Simon Willnauer 
wrote:

> I think we need to respin here - I upgraded ES and I got some failures
> since the
>
> LuceneTestCase#TEST_VERSION_CURRENT is still 4.10.1
>
> see:
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_10/lucene/test-framework/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/LuceneTestCase.java
>
> i am not sure if this has impact on anything but it's definitely wrong no?
> I think there should be a test in lucene that checks if this version points
> to `Versoin.LATEST`?
>
> simon
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> SUCCESS! [1:05:35.187369]
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Michael McCandless <
>> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Artifacts:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
>>>
>>> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
>>> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
>>>
>>> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
>>>
>>> Here's my +1
>>>
>>> Mike McCandless
>>>
>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Anshum Gupta
>> [image: http://]about.me/anshumgupta
>> 
>>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Simon Willnauer]

I think we need to respin here - I upgraded ES and I got some failures
since the

LuceneTestCase#TEST_VERSION_CURRENT is still 4.10.1

see:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_10/lucene/test-framework/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/LuceneTestCase.java

i am not sure if this has impact on anything but it's definitely wrong no?
I think there should be a test in lucene that checks if this version points
to `Versoin.LATEST`?

simon

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Anshum Gupta 
wrote:

> +1
>
> SUCCESS! [1:05:35.187369]
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> Artifacts:
>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
>>
>> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
>> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
>>
>> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
>>
>> Here's my +1
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Anshum Gupta
> [image: http://]about.me/anshumgupta
> 
>

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Anshum Gupta]

+1

SUCCESS! [1:05:35.187369]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> Artifacts:
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
>
> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
>
> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
>
> Here's my +1
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 

Anshum Gupta
[image: http://]about.me/anshumgupta

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Yonik Seeley]

+1, looks good!

-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data


On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Michael McCandless
 wrote:
> Artifacts: 
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
>
> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
>
> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
>
> Here's my +1
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

RE: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Uwe Schindler]

Hi,

We did not see the issue earlier, because I was not aware that you wanted a 
4.10.2. Otherwise I would have reenabled the Jenkins build earlier.
Indeed, the obsolete sha1 file is no problem for the release (a missing one 
would be serious), but it should be fixed asap.

Uwe

-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de


> -Original Message-
> From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 4:36 PM
> To: Lucene/Solr dev
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0
> 
> Thanks Rob, I don't think we need to respin.  Can you commit that?  In
> general please watch Jenkins to see if your commit has caused problems like
> this.
> 
> Mike McCandless
> 
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Robert Muir  wrote:
> > The problem is extra .sha1, LICENSE, and NOTICE... essentially an
> > extra dependency.
> >
> > jenkins basically "regenerates all .sha1" then checks that the svn
> > copy is clean. If its not, it means dependencies are screwed up.
> >
> > IMO this is the fix:
> >
> > rmuir@beast:~/workspace/lucene_solr_4_10$ svn status
> > D   solr/licenses/kite-morphlines-hadoop-sequencefile-0.12.1.jar.sha1
> > D   solr/licenses/kite-morphlines-hadoop-sequencefile-LICENSE-ASL.txt
> > D   solr/licenses/kite-morphlines-hadoop-sequencefile-NOTICE.txt
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Robert Muir  wrote:
> >> Mike, thanks for doing the work to spin an RC!
> >>
> >> I have a concern that currently jenkins builds against 4.10.x are
> >> failing with some issue in solr licensing.
> >> Somehow dependencies are not quite right, e.g. missing .sha1 file or
> something?
> >>
> >> Maybe its minor and the RC is unaffected...
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Michael McCandless
> >>  wrote:
> >>> Artifacts:
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-
> 4.10.2
> >>> -RC0-rev1634084/
> >>>
> >>> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-
> 4.10.2
> >>> -RC0-rev1634084
> >>> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
> >>>
> >>> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
> >>>
> >>> Here's my +1
> >>>
> >>> Mike McCandless
> >>>
> >>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For
> >>> additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >>>
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For
> > additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Michael McCandless]

Thanks Rob, I don't think we need to respin.  Can you commit that?  In
general please watch Jenkins to see if your commit has caused problems
like this.

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Robert Muir  wrote:
> The problem is extra .sha1, LICENSE, and NOTICE... essentially an
> extra dependency.
>
> jenkins basically "regenerates all .sha1" then checks that the svn
> copy is clean. If its not, it means dependencies are screwed up.
>
> IMO this is the fix:
>
> rmuir@beast:~/workspace/lucene_solr_4_10$ svn status
> D   solr/licenses/kite-morphlines-hadoop-sequencefile-0.12.1.jar.sha1
> D   solr/licenses/kite-morphlines-hadoop-sequencefile-LICENSE-ASL.txt
> D   solr/licenses/kite-morphlines-hadoop-sequencefile-NOTICE.txt
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Robert Muir  wrote:
>> Mike, thanks for doing the work to spin an RC!
>>
>> I have a concern that currently jenkins builds against 4.10.x are
>> failing with some issue in solr licensing.
>> Somehow dependencies are not quite right, e.g. missing .sha1 file or 
>> something?
>>
>> Maybe its minor and the RC is unaffected...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Michael McCandless
>>  wrote:
>>> Artifacts: 
>>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
>>>
>>> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
>>> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
>>>
>>> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
>>>
>>> Here's my +1
>>>
>>> Mike McCandless
>>>
>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Robert Muir]

The problem is extra .sha1, LICENSE, and NOTICE... essentially an
extra dependency.

jenkins basically "regenerates all .sha1" then checks that the svn
copy is clean. If its not, it means dependencies are screwed up.

IMO this is the fix:

rmuir@beast:~/workspace/lucene_solr_4_10$ svn status
D   solr/licenses/kite-morphlines-hadoop-sequencefile-0.12.1.jar.sha1
D   solr/licenses/kite-morphlines-hadoop-sequencefile-LICENSE-ASL.txt
D   solr/licenses/kite-morphlines-hadoop-sequencefile-NOTICE.txt

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Robert Muir  wrote:
> Mike, thanks for doing the work to spin an RC!
>
> I have a concern that currently jenkins builds against 4.10.x are
> failing with some issue in solr licensing.
> Somehow dependencies are not quite right, e.g. missing .sha1 file or 
> something?
>
> Maybe its minor and the RC is unaffected...
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Michael McCandless
>  wrote:
>> Artifacts: 
>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
>>
>> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
>> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
>>
>> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
>>
>> Here's my +1
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Robert Muir]

Mike, thanks for doing the work to spin an RC!

I have a concern that currently jenkins builds against 4.10.x are
failing with some issue in solr licensing.
Somehow dependencies are not quite right, e.g. missing .sha1 file or something?

Maybe its minor and the RC is unaffected...


On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Michael McCandless
 wrote:
> Artifacts: 
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
>
> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
>
> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
>
> Here's my +1
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Adrien Grand]

+1

SUCCESS! [0:55:03.144577]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> +1
>
> SUCCESS! [0:53:44.848301]
>
> Steve
>
>> On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael McCandless  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Artifacts: 
>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
>>
>> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
>> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
>>
>> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
>>
>> Here's my +1
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>



-- 
Adrien

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.2 RC0

[Steve Rowe]

+1

SUCCESS! [0:53:44.848301]

Steve

> On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael McCandless  
> wrote:
> 
> Artifacts: 
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084/
> 
> Smoke tester: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.10.2-RC0-rev1634084
> 1634084 4.10.2 /tmp/smoke4102 True
> 
> SUCCESS! [0:29:20.274057]
> 
> Here's my +1
> 
> Mike McCandless
> 
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org