Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] 10.8.2.1 release

[Myrna van Lunteren <m....@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rick Hillegas <ri...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Myrna,
>
> Some comments inline...
>
> On 9/30/11 11:57 AM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Matrigali
>> <mi...@sbcglobal.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/29/11 6:22 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm now officially cancelling the vote for 10.8.2.1 as a release
>>>>> candidate.
>>>>> The reasons are the issues which I updated to blocker:
>>>>> DERBY-5430
>>>>> DERBY-5422
>>>>
>>>> Hi Myrna,
>>>>
>>>> I believe these are both consequences of increasing the concurrency of
>>>> identity columns, that is, fallout from DERBY-4437. I am looking at
>>>> DERBY-5430 now. I intend to look at DERBY-5422 now that you have
>>>> demonstrated that it is not fixed by the patch for DERBY-5423.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I will be able to wrap up both bugs next week since I will
>>>> be busy at Java One. Here are some options to consider:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Back out the port of DERBY-4437 to 10.8 and continue debugging the
>>>> issues on the trunk. I am not confident that this will fix DERBY-5422. I
>>>> think that bug is triggered by the use of identity columns in NsTest and
>>>> the
>>>> bug appears because identities now use the same preallocation logic as
>>>> sequences. It is likely that the bug is also triggered by the use of
>>>> sequences, and without more investigation I can't say whether the bug is
>>>> even new to 10.8.2.
>>>
>>> Given the number of issues that have surfaced in this testing round
>>> related
>>> to backport of identity enhancement I would lean toward backing out the
>>> backport of 4437, cut a new release candidate and verify that nstest no
>>> longer sees new issues.  I believe even without 4437 the proposed release
>>> would be a marked improvement for apache 10.8 users.
>>>
>>> Concurrently work on the issues in trunk.   And we can cut another 10.8
>>> bug fix release down the line when we have had time to fix the issues and
>>> run some long term stress testing to verify the identity behavior which
>>> will
>>> affect many existing users.
>>>
>>>  From my reading of the code I agree with rick that the remaining issues
>>> are
>>> not specific to identity and also affect sequences.   So likely we
>>> will want to backport fixes made to 10.8 for sequences.  It may be
>>> interesting to either add sequences to nstest or fork a copy that
>>> substitutes them to verify that the issue is not particular to identity.
>>> It would be also valuable if we could produce some tests that reproduce
>>> the issues much more reliably than nstest.
>>>
>>>> 2) Hope that someone else can pick up DERBY-5422 while I look at
>>>> DERBY-5430.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Wait a couple weeks for the next RC to give me time to fix both of
>>>> these bugs.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Rick
>>>>
>> Thanks for your input Rick, Mike.
>>
>> I think Rick has come a long way in fixing a number of issues
>> resulting from DERBY-4377. And it appears to me that backing out
>> DERBY-4377 is also a considerable effort at this time? (I assume this
>> means we then need to back out also DERBY-5408, doc issue DERBY-5307
>> (do we loose the need for derby.language.preallocator property if we
>> back this out?), DERBY-5423? How about DERBY-4565?).
>
> I think we would need to back out the following commits:
>
> DERBY-4437 1141645: This is the master commit which ported most of the 10.9
> changes to 10.8
>
> DERBY-4437 1142052: This commit ported an upgrade test from 10.9 to 10.8.
> The test verifies the new identity behavior.
>
> DERBY-5307 1141651: This commit ported documentation of the
> derby.language.sequence.preallocator property from 10.9 docs to 10.8 docs.
> Note that the property still has meaning for sequences although the property
> would be less capable after backing out 1141645.
>
> DERBY-5408 1170178: This commit ported the localization fixes for the 2200H
> message from 10.9 to the 10.8 branch.
>
> DERBY-5426 1174297: This commit ported some SequenceUpdater changes from
> 10.9 to the 10.8 branch. The changes improved the error reporting when there
> was too much contention on an identity column.
>
> I don't think that we need to back out the following work:
>
> DERBY-5423: Nothing to do here. This issue was resolved because of the work
> on DERBY-5426.
>
> DERBY-4565: Nothing to do here. All of this work made it into 10.6.1.0.
>
>> Rick, do you think you could have a handle on DERBY-5430 say - within
>> a week? How much time/effort would backing out DERBY-4377 take?
>
> I've made good progress today but I can't promise that I'll understand the
> problem by the end of next week. Next week I will be busy at Java One. I
> think it's likely I will understand what's broken by the end of the
> following week.
>
> If all goes well, it would take a day to back out DERBY-4437. If all doesn't
> go well, it could take longer.
>
> I don't think I will have time to adequately test an RC which is produced
> during the week of Java One.
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>>
>> I'm not happy to spin a release with only nstest to detect DERBY-5422.
>>
>> Would a week more time give someone the opportunity to analyze the
>> problem and come up with a repro? Is there anyone interested/willing
>> to attempt a repro for either of these two issues?
>>
>> Myrna
>>
>
>

Thank you for the information Rick,

I think at this time I'd like for DERBY-4377 to be backed out.
Do you have time to tackle this task now?

Myrna

Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] 10.8.2.1 release

[Rick Hillegas <ri...@oracle.com>]

On 10/3/11 1:58 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Myrna van Lunteren
> <m....@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rick Hillegas<ri...@oracle.com>  wrote:
>>> Hi Myrna,
>>>
>>> Some comments inline...
>>>
>>> On 9/30/11 11:57 AM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Matrigali
>>>> <mi...@sbcglobal.net>    wrote:
>>>>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/29/11 6:22 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm now officially cancelling the vote for 10.8.2.1 as a release
>>>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>>> The reasons are the issues which I updated to blocker:
>>>>>>> DERBY-5430
>>>>>>> DERBY-5422
>>>>>> Hi Myrna,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe these are both consequences of increasing the concurrency of
>>>>>> identity columns, that is, fallout from DERBY-4437. I am looking at
>>>>>> DERBY-5430 now. I intend to look at DERBY-5422 now that you have
>>>>>> demonstrated that it is not fixed by the patch for DERBY-5423.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think I will be able to wrap up both bugs next week since I will
>>>>>> be busy at Java One. Here are some options to consider:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Back out the port of DERBY-4437 to 10.8 and continue debugging the
>>>>>> issues on the trunk. I am not confident that this will fix DERBY-5422. I
>>>>>> think that bug is triggered by the use of identity columns in NsTest and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> bug appears because identities now use the same preallocation logic as
>>>>>> sequences. It is likely that the bug is also triggered by the use of
>>>>>> sequences, and without more investigation I can't say whether the bug is
>>>>>> even new to 10.8.2.
>>>>> Given the number of issues that have surfaced in this testing round
>>>>> related
>>>>> to backport of identity enhancement I would lean toward backing out the
>>>>> backport of 4437, cut a new release candidate and verify that nstest no
>>>>> longer sees new issues.  I believe even without 4437 the proposed release
>>>>> would be a marked improvement for apache 10.8 users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Concurrently work on the issues in trunk.   And we can cut another 10.8
>>>>> bug fix release down the line when we have had time to fix the issues and
>>>>> run some long term stress testing to verify the identity behavior which
>>>>> will
>>>>> affect many existing users.
>>>>>
>>>>>   From my reading of the code I agree with rick that the remaining issues
>>>>> are
>>>>> not specific to identity and also affect sequences.   So likely we
>>>>> will want to backport fixes made to 10.8 for sequences.  It may be
>>>>> interesting to either add sequences to nstest or fork a copy that
>>>>> substitutes them to verify that the issue is not particular to identity.
>>>>> It would be also valuable if we could produce some tests that reproduce
>>>>> the issues much more reliably than nstest.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Hope that someone else can pick up DERBY-5422 while I look at
>>>>>> DERBY-5430.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Wait a couple weeks for the next RC to give me time to fix both of
>>>>>> these bugs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -Rick
>>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your input Rick, Mike.
>>>>
>>>> I think Rick has come a long way in fixing a number of issues
>>>> resulting from DERBY-4377. And it appears to me that backing out
>>>> DERBY-4377 is also a considerable effort at this time? (I assume this
>>>> means we then need to back out also DERBY-5408, doc issue DERBY-5307
>>>> (do we loose the need for derby.language.preallocator property if we
>>>> back this out?), DERBY-5423? How about DERBY-4565?).
>>> I think we would need to back out the following commits:
>>>
>>> DERBY-4437 1141645: This is the master commit which ported most of the 10.9
>>> changes to 10.8
>>>
>>> DERBY-4437 1142052: This commit ported an upgrade test from 10.9 to 10.8.
>>> The test verifies the new identity behavior.
>>>
>>> DERBY-5307 1141651: This commit ported documentation of the
>>> derby.language.sequence.preallocator property from 10.9 docs to 10.8 docs.
>>> Note that the property still has meaning for sequences although the property
>>> would be less capable after backing out 1141645.
>>>
>>> DERBY-5408 1170178: This commit ported the localization fixes for the 2200H
>>> message from 10.9 to the 10.8 branch.
>>>
>>> DERBY-5426 1174297: This commit ported some SequenceUpdater changes from
>>> 10.9 to the 10.8 branch. The changes improved the error reporting when there
>>> was too much contention on an identity column.
>>>
>>> I don't think that we need to back out the following work:
>>>
>>> DERBY-5423: Nothing to do here. This issue was resolved because of the work
>>> on DERBY-5426.
>>>
>>> DERBY-4565: Nothing to do here. All of this work made it into 10.6.1.0.
>>>
>>>> Rick, do you think you could have a handle on DERBY-5430 say - within
>>>> a week? How much time/effort would backing out DERBY-4377 take?
>>> I've made good progress today but I can't promise that I'll understand the
>>> problem by the end of next week. Next week I will be busy at Java One. I
>>> think it's likely I will understand what's broken by the end of the
>>> following week.
>>>
>>> If all goes well, it would take a day to back out DERBY-4437. If all doesn't
>>> go well, it could take longer.
>>>
>>> I don't think I will have time to adequately test an RC which is produced
>>> during the week of Java One.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Rick
>>>> I'm not happy to spin a release with only nstest to detect DERBY-5422.
>>>>
>>>> Would a week more time give someone the opportunity to analyze the
>>>> problem and come up with a repro? Is there anyone interested/willing
>>>> to attempt a repro for either of these two issues?
>>>>
>>>> Myrna
>>>>
>>>
>> Thank you for the information Rick,
>>
>> I think at this time I'd like for DERBY-4377 to be backed out.
>> Do you have time to tackle this task now?
Hi Myrna,

I think I can start tackling this on Thursday.

Regards,
-Rick
>> Myrna
>>
> Oh dear, I've muddled the numbers again.  I meant for DERBY-4437 to be
> backed out of the 10.8 branch.
>
> Myrna
>

Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] 10.8.2.1 release

[Myrna van Lunteren <m....@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Myrna van Lunteren
<m....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rick Hillegas <ri...@oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Myrna,
>>
>> Some comments inline...
>>
>> On 9/30/11 11:57 AM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Matrigali
>>> <mi...@sbcglobal.net>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/29/11 6:22 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm now officially cancelling the vote for 10.8.2.1 as a release
>>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>> The reasons are the issues which I updated to blocker:
>>>>>> DERBY-5430
>>>>>> DERBY-5422
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Myrna,
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe these are both consequences of increasing the concurrency of
>>>>> identity columns, that is, fallout from DERBY-4437. I am looking at
>>>>> DERBY-5430 now. I intend to look at DERBY-5422 now that you have
>>>>> demonstrated that it is not fixed by the patch for DERBY-5423.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think I will be able to wrap up both bugs next week since I will
>>>>> be busy at Java One. Here are some options to consider:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Back out the port of DERBY-4437 to 10.8 and continue debugging the
>>>>> issues on the trunk. I am not confident that this will fix DERBY-5422. I
>>>>> think that bug is triggered by the use of identity columns in NsTest and
>>>>> the
>>>>> bug appears because identities now use the same preallocation logic as
>>>>> sequences. It is likely that the bug is also triggered by the use of
>>>>> sequences, and without more investigation I can't say whether the bug is
>>>>> even new to 10.8.2.
>>>>
>>>> Given the number of issues that have surfaced in this testing round
>>>> related
>>>> to backport of identity enhancement I would lean toward backing out the
>>>> backport of 4437, cut a new release candidate and verify that nstest no
>>>> longer sees new issues.  I believe even without 4437 the proposed release
>>>> would be a marked improvement for apache 10.8 users.
>>>>
>>>> Concurrently work on the issues in trunk.   And we can cut another 10.8
>>>> bug fix release down the line when we have had time to fix the issues and
>>>> run some long term stress testing to verify the identity behavior which
>>>> will
>>>> affect many existing users.
>>>>
>>>>  From my reading of the code I agree with rick that the remaining issues
>>>> are
>>>> not specific to identity and also affect sequences.   So likely we
>>>> will want to backport fixes made to 10.8 for sequences.  It may be
>>>> interesting to either add sequences to nstest or fork a copy that
>>>> substitutes them to verify that the issue is not particular to identity.
>>>> It would be also valuable if we could produce some tests that reproduce
>>>> the issues much more reliably than nstest.
>>>>
>>>>> 2) Hope that someone else can pick up DERBY-5422 while I look at
>>>>> DERBY-5430.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Wait a couple weeks for the next RC to give me time to fix both of
>>>>> these bugs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -Rick
>>>>>
>>> Thanks for your input Rick, Mike.
>>>
>>> I think Rick has come a long way in fixing a number of issues
>>> resulting from DERBY-4377. And it appears to me that backing out
>>> DERBY-4377 is also a considerable effort at this time? (I assume this
>>> means we then need to back out also DERBY-5408, doc issue DERBY-5307
>>> (do we loose the need for derby.language.preallocator property if we
>>> back this out?), DERBY-5423? How about DERBY-4565?).
>>
>> I think we would need to back out the following commits:
>>
>> DERBY-4437 1141645: This is the master commit which ported most of the 10.9
>> changes to 10.8
>>
>> DERBY-4437 1142052: This commit ported an upgrade test from 10.9 to 10.8.
>> The test verifies the new identity behavior.
>>
>> DERBY-5307 1141651: This commit ported documentation of the
>> derby.language.sequence.preallocator property from 10.9 docs to 10.8 docs.
>> Note that the property still has meaning for sequences although the property
>> would be less capable after backing out 1141645.
>>
>> DERBY-5408 1170178: This commit ported the localization fixes for the 2200H
>> message from 10.9 to the 10.8 branch.
>>
>> DERBY-5426 1174297: This commit ported some SequenceUpdater changes from
>> 10.9 to the 10.8 branch. The changes improved the error reporting when there
>> was too much contention on an identity column.
>>
>> I don't think that we need to back out the following work:
>>
>> DERBY-5423: Nothing to do here. This issue was resolved because of the work
>> on DERBY-5426.
>>
>> DERBY-4565: Nothing to do here. All of this work made it into 10.6.1.0.
>>
>>> Rick, do you think you could have a handle on DERBY-5430 say - within
>>> a week? How much time/effort would backing out DERBY-4377 take?
>>
>> I've made good progress today but I can't promise that I'll understand the
>> problem by the end of next week. Next week I will be busy at Java One. I
>> think it's likely I will understand what's broken by the end of the
>> following week.
>>
>> If all goes well, it would take a day to back out DERBY-4437. If all doesn't
>> go well, it could take longer.
>>
>> I don't think I will have time to adequately test an RC which is produced
>> during the week of Java One.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Rick
>>>
>>> I'm not happy to spin a release with only nstest to detect DERBY-5422.
>>>
>>> Would a week more time give someone the opportunity to analyze the
>>> problem and come up with a repro? Is there anyone interested/willing
>>> to attempt a repro for either of these two issues?
>>>
>>> Myrna
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Thank you for the information Rick,
>
> I think at this time I'd like for DERBY-4377 to be backed out.
> Do you have time to tackle this task now?
>
> Myrna
>
Oh dear, I've muddled the numbers again.  I meant for DERBY-4437 to be
backed out of the 10.8 branch.

Myrna