You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org> on 2016/02/11 11:45:38 UTC
Oak 1.3.16 release plan
Hello team,
I'm planning to cut Oak 1.3.16 on Monday 15th February more or less 10am
GMT.
If there are any objections please let me know. Otherwise I will
re-schedule any non-resolved issue for the next iteration.
Thanks
Davide
Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan
Posted by Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>.
On 12/02/2016 12:03, Stefan Egli wrote:
> Hi Davide,
>
> As mentioned on the list OAK-4006 is in discussion and in the works. So,
> depending on the outcome it might require a small delay.
>
Sure not a problem. Ping me directly when done so that we can short-cut
any delays.
Cheers
Davide
Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan
Posted by Stefan Egli <st...@apache.org>.
Hi Davide,
As mentioned on the list OAK-4006 is in discussion and in the works. So,
depending on the outcome it might require a small delay.
Cheers,
Stefan
On 11/02/16 11:45, "Davide Giannella" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>Hello team,
>
>I'm planning to cut Oak 1.3.16 on Monday 15th February more or less 10am
>GMT.
>
>If there are any objections please let me know. Otherwise I will
>re-schedule any non-resolved issue for the next iteration.
>
>Thanks
>Davide
>
>
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>.
On 12/02/2016 15:00, Davide Giannella wrote:
> Team,
>
> the build is constantly failing on my local with (oak-upgrade)
> ...
Thank you everyone for the effort and collaboration. All the issues are
resolved and I will start producing the cut around 10.30am GMT.
Please refrain any commit around that time up to when you see the voting
email.
Cheers
Davide
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2016-02-15 11:47, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...in the meantime, I think we should change oak-trunk back to use
> 2.11.3, so we have a clean build until this new issue is understood and
> fixed.
>
> Best regards, Julian
Related to that...: OAK 1.2 currently uses Jackrabbit 2.10.0, although
2.10.1 has been released a long time ago.
Shouldn't Oak always use the latest stable release from the matching
Jackrabbit branch?
Best regards, Julian
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>.
On 15/02/2016 10:47, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...in the meantime, I think we should change oak-trunk back to use
> 2.11.3, so we have a clean build until this new issue is understood
> and fixed.
Done! :)
Cheers
Davide
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2016-02-15 10:31, Davide Giannella wrote:
> On 12/02/2016 18:36, Manfred Baedke wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which
>> changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be
>> tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE.
> Thank you very much Manfred.
>
> I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4018 to keep track
> and block 1.3.16.
>
>>From here, once it's fixed in JR we have potentially 2 options:
>
> 1) unlock 1.3.16 by downgrading to JR 2.11.3
> 2) release JR 2.12.1, upgrade to Oak, release 1.3.16. Which will bring
> the oak relase around 4-5 days late.
>
> I'm for two as it will give us more coverage around the inclusion of the
> new stable JR release.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Davide
...in the meantime, I think we should change oak-trunk back to use
2.11.3, so we have a clean build until this new issue is understood and
fixed.
Best regards, Julian
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Manfred Baedke <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi Tomek,
Thx a lot. I'll patch the relevant branches now.
Best regards,
Manfred
On 2/15/2016 11:41 AM, Tomek Rekawek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The already mentioned JCR-2633 puts jcr:mixinTypes property into NodePropBundle#getPropertyEntries(). As a result, the oak-upgrade code responsible for replacing mix:simpleVersionable with mix:versionable doesn’t work correctly (the results are replaced by the original properties). I explained this in OAK-4018 and attached a patch.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomek
>
>
> On 15/02/16 11:17, "Julian Sedding" <js...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The test failures in the issue seem to suggest that this may be relates to
>> simple versionables. IIRC we recently added support for some broken JR2
>> constructs. Could they have been fixed in the last JR release? If that's
>> the case it may no longer be possible to populate the source repository for
>> the tests.
>>
>> Just pure guesses, but I thought it might help.
>>
>> Regards
>> Julian
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 15, 2016, Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/02/2016 18:36, Manfred Baedke wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which
>>>> changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be
>>>> tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE.
>>> Thank you very much Manfred.
>>>
>>> I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4018 to keep track
>>> and block 1.3.16.
>>>
>>> From here, once it's fixed in JR we have potentially 2 options:
>>>
>>> 1) unlock 1.3.16 by downgrading to JR 2.11.3
>>> 2) release JR 2.12.1, upgrade to Oak, release 1.3.16. Which will bring
>>> the oak relase around 4-5 days late.
>>>
>>> I'm for two as it will give us more coverage around the inclusion of the
>>> new stable JR release.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Davide
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Tomek Rekawek <re...@adobe.com>.
Hello,
The already mentioned JCR-2633 puts jcr:mixinTypes property into NodePropBundle#getPropertyEntries(). As a result, the oak-upgrade code responsible for replacing mix:simpleVersionable with mix:versionable doesn’t work correctly (the results are replaced by the original properties). I explained this in OAK-4018 and attached a patch.
Best regards,
Tomek
On 15/02/16 11:17, "Julian Sedding" <js...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The test failures in the issue seem to suggest that this may be relates to
>simple versionables. IIRC we recently added support for some broken JR2
>constructs. Could they have been fixed in the last JR release? If that's
>the case it may no longer be possible to populate the source repository for
>the tests.
>
>Just pure guesses, but I thought it might help.
>
>Regards
>Julian
>
>
>On Monday, February 15, 2016, Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2016 18:36, Manfred Baedke wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which
>> > changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be
>> > tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE.
>> Thank you very much Manfred.
>>
>> I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4018 to keep track
>> and block 1.3.16.
>>
>> From here, once it's fixed in JR we have potentially 2 options:
>>
>> 1) unlock 1.3.16 by downgrading to JR 2.11.3
>> 2) release JR 2.12.1, upgrade to Oak, release 1.3.16. Which will bring
>> the oak relase around 4-5 days late.
>>
>> I'm for two as it will give us more coverage around the inclusion of the
>> new stable JR release.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Davide
>>
>>
>>
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Julian Sedding <js...@gmail.com>.
The test failures in the issue seem to suggest that this may be relates to
simple versionables. IIRC we recently added support for some broken JR2
constructs. Could they have been fixed in the last JR release? If that's
the case it may no longer be possible to populate the source repository for
the tests.
Just pure guesses, but I thought it might help.
Regards
Julian
On Monday, February 15, 2016, Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 12/02/2016 18:36, Manfred Baedke wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which
> > changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be
> > tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE.
> Thank you very much Manfred.
>
> I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4018 to keep track
> and block 1.3.16.
>
> From here, once it's fixed in JR we have potentially 2 options:
>
> 1) unlock 1.3.16 by downgrading to JR 2.11.3
> 2) release JR 2.12.1, upgrade to Oak, release 1.3.16. Which will bring
> the oak relase around 4-5 days late.
>
> I'm for two as it will give us more coverage around the inclusion of the
> new stable JR release.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Davide
>
>
>
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>.
On 12/02/2016 18:36, Manfred Baedke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which
> changes the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be
> tweaked accordingly, I'll look into it during WE.
Thank you very much Manfred.
I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4018 to keep track
and block 1.3.16.
>From here, once it's fixed in JR we have potentially 2 options:
1) unlock 1.3.16 by downgrading to JR 2.11.3
2) release JR 2.12.1, upgrade to Oak, release 1.3.16. Which will bring
the oak relase around 4-5 days late.
I'm for two as it will give us more coverage around the inclusion of the
new stable JR release.
Thoughts?
Davide
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Manfred Baedke <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
This is due to change 1721196 (associated with JCR-2633), which changes
the persistent data model. Probably the test has just to be tweaked
accordingly, I'll look into it during WE.
Best regards,
Manfred
On 2/12/2016 5:50 PM, Davide Giannella wrote:
> On 12/02/2016 16:39, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> It seems this was caused by switching to Jackrabbit 2.12.0.
>>
>> Reverting http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1730031&view=rev might
>> unblock the release, but of course we'll still need to find out what
>> Jackrabbit change caused the regression, why that wasn't catched by
>> Jackrabbit tests, fix that, and make a new Jackrabbit release...
> ok. We'll need a stable JR into Oak for 1.4. Honestly I'd rather delay
> the 1.3.16 a couple of days for a proper fix so that we'll have longer
> coverage in oak with the JR 2.12 branch.
>
> The bug came indeed out after my inclusion of JR 2.12 which highlights
> how coupled JR and Oak are; and that with the current approach we need a
> reliable continuous build of JR SNAPSHOT and Oak SNAPSHOT to early catch
> regressions.
>
> Davide
>
>
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>.
On 12/02/2016 16:39, Julian Reschke wrote:
> It seems this was caused by switching to Jackrabbit 2.12.0.
>
> Reverting http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1730031&view=rev might
> unblock the release, but of course we'll still need to find out what
> Jackrabbit change caused the regression, why that wasn't catched by
> Jackrabbit tests, fix that, and make a new Jackrabbit release...
ok. We'll need a stable JR into Oak for 1.4. Honestly I'd rather delay
the 1.3.16 a couple of days for a proper fix so that we'll have longer
coverage in oak with the JR 2.12 branch.
The bug came indeed out after my inclusion of JR 2.12 which highlights
how coupled JR and Oak are; and that with the current approach we need a
reliable continuous build of JR SNAPSHOT and Oak SNAPSHOT to early catch
regressions.
Davide
Re: oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
On 2016-02-12 16:00, Davide Giannella wrote:
> Team,
>
> the build is constantly failing on my local with (oak-upgrade)
>
> Failed tests:
> referencedOlderThanOrphaned(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest):
> No history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old
>
> copyAllVersions(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest):
> Node /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old should have mix:versionable
> mixin
>
> onlyReferencedAfterDate(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest):
> No history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/young
>
> onlyReferenced(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): No
> history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old
>
> referencedSinceDate(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest):
> Node /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/young should have
> mix:versionable mixin
>
> Can anyone give a look as it will be a blocker for next Monday release?
>
> Cheers
> Davide
It seems this was caused by switching to Jackrabbit 2.12.0.
Reverting http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1730031&view=rev might
unblock the release, but of course we'll still need to find out what
Jackrabbit change caused the regression, why that wasn't catched by
Jackrabbit tests, fix that, and make a new Jackrabbit release...
Best regards, Julian
oak-upgrade test failures (was Re: Oak 1.3.16 release plan)
Posted by Davide Giannella <da...@apache.org>.
Team,
the build is constantly failing on my local with (oak-upgrade)
Failed tests:
referencedOlderThanOrphaned(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest):
No history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old
copyAllVersions(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest):
Node /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old should have mix:versionable
mixin
onlyReferencedAfterDate(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest):
No history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/young
onlyReferenced(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest): No
history found for /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/old
referencedSinceDate(org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.upgrade.CopyVersionHistoryTest):
Node /versionables/mix:simpleVersionable/young should have
mix:versionable mixin
Can anyone give a look as it will be a blocker for next Monday release?
Cheers
Davide