You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@curator.apache.org by Jordan Zimmerman <ra...@apache.org> on 2016/02/08 20:00:10 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Hello,
This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
*** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
provided for convenience.
Link to release notes:
2.1.10 - https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
3.1.0 - https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
Staging repos:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
Binary artifacts:
2.1.10 - https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
3.1.0 - https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
The tags to be voted upon:
2.10.0 - https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
3.1.0 - https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>.
+1 assuming tests pass
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
>
> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>
> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
> provided for convenience.
>
> Link to release notes:
> 2.1.10 -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
> 3.1.0 -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>
> Staging repos:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>
> Binary artifacts:
> 2.1.10 -
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
> 3.1.0 -
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>
> The tags to be voted upon:
> 2.10.0 -
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
> 3.1.0 -
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>
> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com>.
Excellent. Thanks everyone. I’ll work on a new release.
-Jordan
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 8:10 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 3.0 build ran with no test errors. Nice work Scott!
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for sorting this Scott,
>> I'm running the tests on 3.0 now.
>> cheers
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Alright... pushed! I think this fixes things. Thanks for your patience!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds good - go ahead.
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I want to push a commit to master, merge master into 3.0, and then push
>>>> another commit into 3.0. I think this will fix TestTreeCache and also
>>>> generally make that test fail faster if we write a bad test in the
>>> future.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is
>>>>> creating pollution.. working on this now.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Jordan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually let me clarify..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 on 2.10.0
>>>>>> -1 on 3.1.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today).
>>>>>>> Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate
>>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on
>>> 3.0.
>>>>>>>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0
>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more
>>>>>>>>> reliable
>>>>>>>>>>> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into
>>>>>>>>> this also.
>>>>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>>>>>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address
>>> this
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s
>>>>>>>>> been the case
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -JZ
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keys verify OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.10.0:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.0:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Failed tests:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected
>>>>>>>>> [NODE_ADDED] but
>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected
>>>>>>>>> [/test/one] but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> found [/test]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected
>>>>>>>>> [NODE_ADDED] but
>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run 2: PASS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>>>>>> randgalt@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions
>>>>>>>>> 2.10.0 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries
>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided for convenience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Link to release notes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staging repos:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Binary artifacts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.10.0 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
>>>>>>>>> release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>.
3.0 build ran with no test errors. Nice work Scott!
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks for sorting this Scott,
> I'm running the tests on 3.0 now.
> cheers
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Alright... pushed! I think this fixes things. Thanks for your patience!
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Sounds good - go ahead.
>> >
>> > On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I want to push a commit to master, merge master into 3.0, and then push
>> > another commit into 3.0. I think this will fix TestTreeCache and also
>> > generally make that test fail faster if we write a bad test in the
>> future.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is
>> >> creating pollution.. working on this now.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this
>> >>> release.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Jordan
>> >>>
>> >>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Actually let me clarify..
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 on 2.10.0
>> >>> -1 on 3.1.0
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today).
>> >>>> Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate
>> >>>> subject.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on
>> 3.0.
>> >>>>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> >>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>> >>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > +1
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0
>> >>>>>> branch
>> >>>>>> > though.
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
>> >>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more
>> >>>>>> reliable
>> >>>>>> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into
>> >>>>>> this also.
>> >>>>>> >> cheers
>> >>>>>> >>
>> >>>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> >>>>>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> >>
>> >>>>>> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address
>> this
>> >>>>>> in the
>> >>>>>> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s
>> >>>>>> been the case
>> >>>>>> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>> >>> -JZ
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>> >>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>> Keys verify OK.
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>> 2.10.0:
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run,
>> >>>>>> but
>> >>>>>> >>> passed
>> >>>>>> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>> 3.1.0:
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>> Failed tests:
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>> >>>>>> >>>> Run 1:
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>> >>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected
>> >>>>>> [NODE_ADDED] but
>> >>>>>> >>> found
>> >>>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>> >>>>>> >>>> Run 2:
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>> >>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>> >>>>>> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>> >>>>>> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected
>> >>>>>> [/test/one] but
>> >>>>>> >>>> found [/test]
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>> >>>>>> >>>> Run 1:
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>> >>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected
>> >>>>>> [NODE_ADDED] but
>> >>>>>> >>> found
>> >>>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>> >>>>>> >>>> Run 2: PASS
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> >>>>>> randgalt@apache.org>
>> >>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> Hello,
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions
>> >>>>>> 2.10.0 and
>> >>>>>> >>> 3.1.0
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries
>> are
>> >>>>>> >>>>> provided for convenience.
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> Link to release notes:
>> >>>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>> >>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> Staging repos:
>> >>>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>> >>>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
>> >>>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>> >>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>> >>>>>> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>> >>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
>> >>>>>> release:
>> >>>>>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>> >>>>>> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> >>>>>> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>> >>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for sorting this Scott,
I'm running the tests on 3.0 now.
cheers
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alright... pushed! I think this fixes things. Thanks for your patience!
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Sounds good - go ahead.
> >
> > On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I want to push a commit to master, merge master into 3.0, and then push
> > another commit into 3.0. I think this will fix TestTreeCache and also
> > generally make that test fail faster if we write a bad test in the
> future.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is
> >> creating pollution.. working on this now.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this
> >>> release.
> >>>
> >>> -Jordan
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Actually let me clarify..
> >>>
> >>> +1 on 2.10.0
> >>> -1 on 3.1.0
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today).
> >>>> Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate
> >>>> subject.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0.
> >>>>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
> >>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > +1
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0
> >>>>>> branch
> >>>>>> > though.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
> >>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more
> >>>>>> reliable
> >>>>>> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into
> >>>>>> this also.
> >>>>>> >> cheers
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >>>>>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address
> this
> >>>>>> in the
> >>>>>> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s
> >>>>>> been the case
> >>>>>> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>> -JZ
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
> >>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Keys verify OK.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> 2.10.0:
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run,
> >>>>>> but
> >>>>>> >>> passed
> >>>>>> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> 3.1.0:
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> Failed tests:
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
> >>>>>> >>>> Run 1:
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
> >>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected
> >>>>>> [NODE_ADDED] but
> >>>>>> >>> found
> >>>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
> >>>>>> >>>> Run 2:
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
> >>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
> >>>>>> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
> >>>>>> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected
> >>>>>> [/test/one] but
> >>>>>> >>>> found [/test]
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
> >>>>>> >>>> Run 1:
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
> >>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected
> >>>>>> [NODE_ADDED] but
> >>>>>> >>> found
> >>>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
> >>>>>> >>>> Run 2: PASS
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >>>>>> randgalt@apache.org>
> >>>>>> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions
> >>>>>> 2.10.0 and
> >>>>>> >>> 3.1.0
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
> >>>>>> >>>>> provided for convenience.
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> Link to release notes:
> >>>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
> >>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> Staging repos:
> >>>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
> >>>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
> >>>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
> >>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
> >>>>>> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
> >>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> >>>>>> release:
> >>>>>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
> >>>>>> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >>>>>> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>.
Alright... pushed! I think this fixes things. Thanks for your patience!
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com
> wrote:
> Sounds good - go ahead.
>
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I want to push a commit to master, merge master into 3.0, and then push
> another commit into 3.0. I think this will fix TestTreeCache and also
> generally make that test fail faster if we write a bad test in the future.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is
>> creating pollution.. working on this now.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this
>>> release.
>>>
>>> -Jordan
>>>
>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually let me clarify..
>>>
>>> +1 on 2.10.0
>>> -1 on 3.1.0
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today).
>>>> Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate
>>>> subject.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0.
>>>>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > +1
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0
>>>>>> branch
>>>>>> > though.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more
>>>>>> reliable
>>>>>> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into
>>>>>> this also.
>>>>>> >> cheers
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s
>>>>>> been the case
>>>>>> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> -JZ
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Keys verify OK.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> 2.10.0:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> >>> passed
>>>>>> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> 3.1.0:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Failed tests:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>>>> >>>> Run 1:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected
>>>>>> [NODE_ADDED] but
>>>>>> >>> found
>>>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>>>> >>>> Run 2:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>>>>>> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>>>>>> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected
>>>>>> [/test/one] but
>>>>>> >>>> found [/test]
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>>>> >>>> Run 1:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected
>>>>>> [NODE_ADDED] but
>>>>>> >>> found
>>>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>>>> >>>> Run 2: PASS
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>>> randgalt@apache.org>
>>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Hello,
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions
>>>>>> 2.10.0 and
>>>>>> >>> 3.1.0
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
>>>>>> >>>>> provided for convenience.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Link to release notes:
>>>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Staging repos:
>>>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>>>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
>>>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>>>>>> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
>>>>>> release:
>>>>>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>>> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com>.
Sounds good - go ahead.
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I want to push a commit to master, merge master into 3.0, and then push another commit into 3.0. I think this will fix TestTreeCache and also generally make that test fail faster if we write a bad test in the future.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is creating pollution.. working on this now.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com <ma...@jordanzimmerman.com>> wrote:
> I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this release.
>
> -Jordan
>
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Actually let me clarify..
>>
>> +1 on 2.10.0
>> -1 on 3.1.0
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today). Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate subject.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0. Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com <ma...@jordanzimmerman.com>> wrote:
>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>>
>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0 branch
>> > though.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more reliable
>> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this also.
>> >> cheers
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com <ma...@jordanzimmerman.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this in the
>> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been the case
>> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>> >>>
>> >>> -JZ
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Keys verify OK.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2.10.0:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but
>> >>> passed
>> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 3.1.0:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Failed tests:
>> >>>>
>> >>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>> >>>> Run 1:
>> >>>>
>> >>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
>> >>> found
>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>> >>>> Run 2:
>> >>>>
>> >>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one] but
>> >>>> found [/test]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>> >>>> Run 1:
>> >>>>
>> >>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
>> >>> found
>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>> >>>> Run 2: PASS
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <randgalt@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hello,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and
>> >>> 3.1.0
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
>> >>>>> provided for convenience.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Link to release notes:
>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942>
>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Staging repos:
>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/ <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/>
>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/ <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020 <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020>
>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021 <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521 <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521>
>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9 <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS <http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>.
I want to push a commit to master, merge master into 3.0, and then push
another commit into 3.0. I think this will fix TestTreeCache and also
generally make that test fail faster if we write a bad test in the future.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is
> creating pollution.. working on this now.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>
>> I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this
>> release.
>>
>> -Jordan
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Actually let me clarify..
>>
>> +1 on 2.10.0
>> -1 on 3.1.0
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today).
>>> Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate
>>> subject.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0.
>>>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > +1
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0
>>>>> branch
>>>>> > though.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more
>>>>> reliable
>>>>> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into
>>>>> this also.
>>>>> >> cheers
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this
>>>>> in the
>>>>> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been
>>>>> the case
>>>>> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> -JZ
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Keys verify OK.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> 2.10.0:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but
>>>>> >>> passed
>>>>> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> 3.1.0:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Failed tests:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>>> >>>> Run 1:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED]
>>>>> but
>>>>> >>> found
>>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>>> >>>> Run 2:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>>>>> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>>>>> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected
>>>>> [/test/one] but
>>>>> >>>> found [/test]
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>>> >>>> Run 1:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED]
>>>>> but
>>>>> >>> found
>>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>>> >>>> Run 2: PASS
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>> randgalt@apache.org>
>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Hello,
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions
>>>>> 2.10.0 and
>>>>> >>> 3.1.0
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
>>>>> >>>>> provided for convenience.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Link to release notes:
>>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Staging repos:
>>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
>>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>>>>> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
>>>>> release:
>>>>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>.
I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is
creating pollution.. working on this now.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this release.
>
> -Jordan
>
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually let me clarify..
>
> +1 on 2.10.0
> -1 on 3.1.0
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today).
>> Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate
>> subject.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0.
>>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>>>>
>>>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > +1
>>>> >
>>>> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0 branch
>>>> > though.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more
>>>> reliable
>>>> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this
>>>> also.
>>>> >> cheers
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this
>>>> in the
>>>> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been
>>>> the case
>>>> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> -JZ
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Keys verify OK.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> 2.10.0:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but
>>>> >>> passed
>>>> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> 3.1.0:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Failed tests:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>> >>>> Run 1:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED]
>>>> but
>>>> >>> found
>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>> >>>> Run 2:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>>>> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>>>> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one]
>>>> but
>>>> >>>> found [/test]
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>> >>>> Run 1:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED]
>>>> but
>>>> >>> found
>>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>> >>>> Run 2: PASS
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>> randgalt@apache.org>
>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Hello,
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0
>>>> and
>>>> >>> 3.1.0
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
>>>> >>>>> provided for convenience.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Link to release notes:
>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Staging repos:
>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
>>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>>>> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
>>>> release:
>>>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com>.
I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel this release.
-Jordan
> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually let me clarify..
>
> +1 on 2.10.0
> -1 on 3.1.0
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today). Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate subject.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0. Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <jordan@jordanzimmerman.com <ma...@jordanzimmerman.com>> wrote:
> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>
> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0 branch
> > though.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more reliable
> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this also.
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com <ma...@jordanzimmerman.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this in the
> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been the case
> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
> >>>
> >>> -JZ
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Keys verify OK.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2.10.0:
> >>>>
> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but
> >>> passed
> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3.1.0:
> >>>>
> >>>> Failed tests:
> >>>>
> >>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
> >>>> Run 1:
> >>>>
> >>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
> >>> found
> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
> >>>> Run 2:
> >>>>
> >>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one] but
> >>>> found [/test]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
> >>>> Run 1:
> >>>>
> >>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
> >>> found
> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
> >>>> Run 2: PASS
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <randgalt@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and
> >>> 3.1.0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
> >>>>> provided for convenience.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Link to release notes:
> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
> >>>>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942>
> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
> >>>>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Staging repos:
> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/ <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/>
> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/ <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
> >>>>>
> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020 <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020>
> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
> >>>>>
> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021 <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
> >>>>>
> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521 <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521>
> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
> >>>>>
> >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9 <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS <http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>.
Actually let me clarify..
+1 on 2.10.0
-1 on 3.1.0
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today). Also,
> floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate subject.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0.
>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>>>
>>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0 branch
>>> > though.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more
>>> reliable
>>> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this
>>> also.
>>> >> cheers
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this in
>>> the
>>> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been
>>> the case
>>> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -JZ
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Keys verify OK.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 2.10.0:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but
>>> >>> passed
>>> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 3.1.0:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Failed tests:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>> >>>> Run 1:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED]
>>> but
>>> >>> found
>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>> >>>> Run 2:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>>> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>>> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one]
>>> but
>>> >>>> found [/test]
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>> >>>> Run 1:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED]
>>> but
>>> >>> found
>>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>> >>>> Run 2: PASS
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>> randgalt@apache.org>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Hello,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0
>>> and
>>> >>> 3.1.0
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
>>> >>>>> provided for convenience.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Link to release notes:
>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Staging repos:
>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
>>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>>> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>.
Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today). Also,
floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate subject.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0.
> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>
>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>>
>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0 branch
>> > though.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more reliable
>> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this
>> also.
>> >> cheers
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this in
>> the
>> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been
>> the case
>> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>> >>>
>> >>> -JZ
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Keys verify OK.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2.10.0:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but
>> >>> passed
>> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 3.1.0:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Failed tests:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>> >>>> Run 1:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
>> >>> found
>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>> >>>> Run 2:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one]
>> but
>> >>>> found [/test]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>> >>>> Run 1:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
>> >>> found
>> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
>> >>>> Run 2: PASS
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> randgalt@apache.org>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hello,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0
>> and
>> >>> 3.1.0
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
>> >>>>> provided for convenience.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Link to release notes:
>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Staging repos:
>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
>> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Scott Blum <dr...@gmail.com>.
Let me take a look tomorrow. I had no idea they were failing on 3.0.
Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>
> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0 branch
> > though.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more reliable
> >> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this
> also.
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this in
> the
> >>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been the
> case
> >>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
> >>>
> >>> -JZ
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Keys verify OK.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2.10.0:
> >>>>
> >>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but
> >>> passed
> >>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3.1.0:
> >>>>
> >>>> Failed tests:
> >>>>
> >>>
> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
> >>>> Run 1:
> >>>>
> >>>
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
> >>> found
> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
> >>>> Run 2:
> >>>>
> >>>
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
> >>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
> >>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one] but
> >>>> found [/test]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
> >>>> Run 1:
> >>>>
> >>>
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
> >>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
> >>> found
> >>>> [INITIALIZED]
> >>>> Run 2: PASS
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <randgalt@apache.org
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and
> >>> 3.1.0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
> >>>>> provided for convenience.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Link to release notes:
> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
> >>>>>
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
> >>>>>
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Staging repos:
> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Binary artifacts:
> >>>>> 2.1.10 -
> >>>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
> >>>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
> >>>>> 2.10.0 -
> >>>>>
> >>>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
> >>>>> 3.1.0 -
> >>>>>
> >>>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com>.
Should we cancel the release? Scott?
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0 branch
> though.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more reliable
>> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this also.
>> cheers
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this in the
>>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been the case
>>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>>>
>>> -JZ
>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Keys verify OK.
>>>>
>>>> 2.10.0:
>>>>
>>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but
>>> passed
>>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>>>>
>>>> 3.1.0:
>>>>
>>>> Failed tests:
>>>>
>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>> Run 1:
>>>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
>>> found
>>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>> Run 2:
>>>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one] but
>>>> found [/test]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>> Run 1:
>>>>
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
>>> found
>>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>> Run 2: PASS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <ra...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and
>>> 3.1.0
>>>>>
>>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
>>>>> provided for convenience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Link to release notes:
>>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>>>>>
>>>>> Staging repos:
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> Binary artifacts:
>>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>>>>>
>>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>>>>> 2.10.0 -
>>>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>>>>>
>>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>.
+1
The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for me on the 3.0 branch
though.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more reliable
> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this also.
> cheers
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>
>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this in the
>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been the case
>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>>
>> -JZ
>>
>> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Keys verify OK.
>> >
>> > 2.10.0:
>> >
>> > TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but
>> passed
>> > subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>> >
>> > 3.1.0:
>> >
>> > Failed tests:
>> >
>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>> > Run 1:
>> >
>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>> > TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
>> found
>> > [INITIALIZED]
>> > Run 2:
>> >
>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>> > TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>> > stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>> > , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one] but
>> > found [/test]
>> >
>> >
>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>> > Run 1:
>> >
>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>> > TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
>> found
>> > [INITIALIZED]
>> > Run 2: PASS
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <ra...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and
>> 3.1.0
>> >>
>> >> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>> >>
>> >> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
>> >> provided for convenience.
>> >>
>> >> Link to release notes:
>> >> 2.1.10 -
>> >>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>> >> 3.1.0 -
>> >>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>> >>
>> >> Staging repos:
>> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>> >>
>> >> Binary artifacts:
>> >> 2.1.10 -
>> >>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>> >> 3.1.0 -
>> >>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>> >>
>> >> The tags to be voted upon:
>> >> 2.10.0 -
>> >>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>> >> 3.1.0 -
>> >>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>> >>
>> >> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>> >> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>> >>
>> >> [ ] +1 approve
>> >> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> >>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>.
OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making the tests more reliable
would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to have a look into this also.
cheers
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this in the
> future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been the case
> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
>
> -JZ
>
> > On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Keys verify OK.
> >
> > 2.10.0:
> >
> > TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but passed
> > subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
> >
> > 3.1.0:
> >
> > Failed tests:
> >
> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
> > Run 1:
> >
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
> > TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
> found
> > [INITIALIZED]
> > Run 2:
> >
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
> > TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
> > stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
> > , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one] but
> > found [/test]
> >
> >
> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
> > Run 1:
> >
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
> > TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but
> found
> > [INITIALIZED]
> > Run 2: PASS
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <ra...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and
> 3.1.0
> >>
> >> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
> >>
> >> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
> >> provided for convenience.
> >>
> >> Link to release notes:
> >> 2.1.10 -
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
> >> 3.1.0 -
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
> >>
> >> Staging repos:
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
> >>
> >> Binary artifacts:
> >> 2.1.10 -
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
> >> 3.1.0 -
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
> >>
> >> The tags to be voted upon:
> >> 2.10.0 -
> >>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
> >> 3.1.0 -
> >>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
> >>
> >> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> >> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 approve
> >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com>.
Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have plans to address this in the future. But, I don’t think it should hold the release as it’s been the case for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever the group decides.
-JZ
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Keys verify OK.
>
> 2.10.0:
>
> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but passed
> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>
> 3.1.0:
>
> Failed tests:
> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
> Run 1:
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but found
> [INITIALIZED]
> Run 2:
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one] but
> found [/test]
>
> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
> Run 1:
> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but found
> [INITIALIZED]
> Run 2: PASS
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <ra...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
>>
>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>>
>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
>> provided for convenience.
>>
>> Link to release notes:
>> 2.1.10 -
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>> 3.1.0 -
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>>
>> Staging repos:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>>
>> Binary artifacts:
>> 2.1.10 -
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>> 3.1.0 -
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>>
>> The tags to be voted upon:
>> 2.10.0 -
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>> 3.1.0 -
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>>
>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Posted by Cameron McKenzie <mc...@gmail.com>.
Keys verify OK.
2.10.0:
TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti failed on the first run, but passed
subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
3.1.0:
Failed tests:
org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
Run 1:
TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but found
[INITIALIZED]
Run 2:
TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
, data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46, 49]}} expected [/test/one] but
found [/test]
org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
Run 1:
TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null} expected [NODE_ADDED] but found
[INITIALIZED]
Run 2: PASS
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <ra...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a combined vote to release Apache Curator versions 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
>
> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours
>
> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are
> provided for convenience.
>
> Link to release notes:
> 2.1.10 -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
> 3.1.0 -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>
> Staging repos:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>
> Binary artifacts:
> 2.1.10 -
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
> 3.1.0 -
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>
> The tags to be voted upon:
> 2.10.0 -
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
> 3.1.0 -
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>
> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>