Re: doing 2.3.0 RC1 - tomorrow morning?
Jörn Kottmann wrote: Marshall Schor wrote: Unless I hear some objections, I would like to tag the first (and hopefully only :-) ) release candidate for 2.3.0 tomorrow morning. Please get any fixes finished up that you would like to get into the release before then, or ask for a short delay if needed... -Marshall Would be nice to get some feedback on UIMA-1658 and UIMA-1659 before we do the rc. These are the last to issue I have with our UIMA AS installation which are important to get fixed. 1657 is fixed, 1658 will need perhaps extensive investigation involving uima-as, spring, and activemq - any of which could be the underlying cause. Because this may be quite open-ended, I will go ahead with doing release candidates now, and we can work for as long as we need to on hardening the fail-over. Let's tentatively plan on a uima-as point release in a couple of months to pick up these changes (assuming the fail-over capability has stablized by then). -Marshall Jörn
Re: doing 2.3.0 RC1 - tomorrow morning?
Marshall Schor wrote: Jörn Kottmann wrote: Marshall Schor wrote: Unless I hear some objections, I would like to tag the first (and hopefully only :-) ) release candidate for 2.3.0 tomorrow morning. Please get any fixes finished up that you would like to get into the release before then, or ask for a short delay if needed... -Marshall Would be nice to get some feedback on UIMA-1658 and UIMA-1659 before we do the rc. These are the last to issue I have with our UIMA AS installation which are important to get fixed. 1657 is fixed, 1658 will need perhaps extensive investigation involving uima-as, spring, and activemq - any of which could be the underlying cause. Because this may be quite open-ended, I will go ahead with doing release candidates now, and we can work for as long as we need to on hardening the fail-over. Let's tentatively plan on a uima-as point release in a couple of months to pick up these changes (assuming the fail-over capability has stablized by then). +1, through UIMA-1657 the failover now works after the worker nodes and the clients are restarted. I agree with Marshall that it could take some time to find out whats wrong. Jörn
doing 2.3.0 RC1 - tomorrow morning?
Unless I hear some objections, I would like to tag the first (and hopefully only :-) ) release candidate for 2.3.0 tomorrow morning. Please get any fixes finished up that you would like to get into the release before then, or ask for a short delay if needed... -Marshall
Re: doing 2.3.0 RC1 - tomorrow morning?
Marshall Schor wrote: Unless I hear some objections, I would like to tag the first (and hopefully only :-) ) release candidate for 2.3.0 tomorrow morning. Please get any fixes finished up that you would like to get into the release before then, or ask for a short delay if needed... -Marshall Would be nice to get some feedback on UIMA-1658 and UIMA-1659 before we do the rc. These are the last to issue I have with our UIMA AS installation which are important to get fixed. Jörn
Re: doing 2.3.0 RC1 - tomorrow morning?
Jörn Kottmann wrote: Marshall Schor wrote: Unless I hear some objections, I would like to tag the first (and hopefully only :-) ) release candidate for 2.3.0 tomorrow morning. Please get any fixes finished up that you would like to get into the release before then, or ask for a short delay if needed... -Marshall Would be nice to get some feedback on UIMA-1658 and UIMA-1659 before we do the rc. These are the last to issue I have with our UIMA AS installation which are important to get fixed. OK - I think Jerry was looking at 1657 (which I think you meant instead of 1659?). I wonder, though, if getting fail-over to work (or work better) will be a bit of a long journey, and whether we should do that in the next release? I'm hoping we can release more often (presuming we graduate :-) ) so it won't be so long between releases. -Marshall Jörn
Re: doing 2.3.0 RC1 - tomorrow morning?
Marshall Schor wrote: Jörn Kottmann wrote: Marshall Schor wrote: Unless I hear some objections, I would like to tag the first (and hopefully only :-) ) release candidate for 2.3.0 tomorrow morning. Please get any fixes finished up that you would like to get into the release before then, or ask for a short delay if needed... -Marshall Would be nice to get some feedback on UIMA-1658 and UIMA-1659 before we do the rc. These are the last to issue I have with our UIMA AS installation which are important to get fixed. OK - I think Jerry was looking at 1657 (which I think you meant instead of 1659?). Yes I wonder, though, if getting fail-over to work (or work better) will be a bit of a long journey, and whether we should do that in the next release? Maybe Jerry can give me a few hints where I have to look for the code which is reading from the input queue. Then I maybe find out whats going wrong in the failover case on the worker node. I have time for that tomorrow. On the other side I guess we are doing multiple release candidates anyway right ? Jörn
Re: doing 2.3.0 RC1 - tomorrow morning?
*UIMA-1657 http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-1657 is finished*. I've added two new testcases to test failover URI with tcp and http Both seem to work. For some reason I can't submit changes to the svn from home. I will check this in tomorrow first thing in the morning. The changes I've put in only address support for URI's that contain failover string. I have not tested, nor I claim support for, the actual failover from one broker to the next if the connection fails. On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Jörn Kottmann kottm...@gmail.com wrote: Marshall Schor wrote: Jörn Kottmann wrote: Marshall Schor wrote: Unless I hear some objections, I would like to tag the first (and hopefully only :-) ) release candidate for 2.3.0 tomorrow morning. Please get any fixes finished up that you would like to get into the release before then, or ask for a short delay if needed... -Marshall Would be nice to get some feedback on UIMA-1658 and UIMA-1659 before we do the rc. These are the last to issue I have with our UIMA AS installation which are important to get fixed. OK - I think Jerry was looking at 1657 (which I think you meant instead of 1659?). Yes I wonder, though, if getting fail-over to work (or work better) will be a bit of a long journey, and whether we should do that in the next release? Maybe Jerry can give me a few hints where I have to look for the code which is reading from the input queue. Then I maybe find out whats going wrong in the failover case on the worker node. I have time for that tomorrow. On the other side I guess we are doing multiple release candidates anyway right ? Jörn
Re: doing 2.3.0 RC1 - tomorrow morning?
Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote: *UIMA-1657 http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-1657 is finished*. I've added two new testcases to test failover URI with tcp and http Both seem to work. For some reason I can't submit changes to the svn from home. I will check this in tomorrow first thing in the morning. The changes I've put in only address support for URI's that contain failover string. I have not tested, nor I claim support for, the actual failover from one broker to the next if the connection fails Thanks :-) I will test it as soon as it is checked in. I hope there is only a small problem why the actual failover does not work. I will try to find the cause tomorrow. Jörn
Re: doing 2.3.0 RC1 - tomorrow morning?
Ok, svn was temporarily unavailable. Now is back up. I submitted changes for UIMA-1657. Jorn please test this a close the JIRA if the fixes work for you Thanks, Jerry On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Jörn Kottmann kottm...@gmail.com wrote: Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote: *UIMA-1657 http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-1657 is finished*. I've added two new testcases to test failover URI with tcp and http Both seem to work. For some reason I can't submit changes to the svn from home. I will check this in tomorrow first thing in the morning. The changes I've put in only address support for URI's that contain failover string. I have not tested, nor I claim support for, the actual failover from one broker to the next if the connection fails Thanks :-) I will test it as soon as it is checked in. I hope there is only a small problem why the actual failover does not work. I will try to find the cause tomorrow. Jörn
