Aren't we dropping java 6 support?
On 04.08.2015 12:21, Stephan Ewen wrote:
The "StateCheckpointedITCase" has not failed so far, which also test these
guarantees thoroughly.
But we need to first rule out the BarrierBuffer. The problem is that the
bug occur only on Java 6 and cannot be reproduced locally...
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
Honestly I don't think the partitioned state changes have anything to do
with the stability, only the reworked test case, which now test proper
exactly-once which was missing before.
Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2015. aug. 4., K,
12:12):
Yes, the build stability is super serious right now.
Here are the problems in question, and what we could do about this:
BarrierBuffer:
--------------------
Barrier Buffer tests fail in Java 6 builds.
I have not found a way to diagnose that problem, yet, but if we cannot
find
the issue today, I would be willing to revert my latest commits on the
barrier buffer to increase the stability.
StreamCheckpointingITCase
-------------------------------------------
This seems to have started with either the barrier buffer, or the updated
partitioned state. If fixing/reverting the barrier buffer does not fix
it,
and no fix has come up
until then, let's revert the latest changes to the partitioned state and
re-add them when they are stable.
Tachyon:
-------------
The Tachyon mini cluster has a problem, apparently, the programs exit
with
a sysexit or segfault.
Since we have no Tachyon code ourselves, do we need this test as part of
the nightly tests?
Can we make this a "manual" test that we trigger on demand?
Greetings,
Stephan
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
wrote:
I've also seen this fail:
https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/74025862
in SuccessAfterNetworkBuffersFailureITCase
Build seems quite flaky recently.
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 at 10:27 Matthias J. Sax <
mj...@informatik.hu-berlin.de
wrote:
Rebased on:
https://github.com/mjsax/flink/commit/fab61a1954ff1554448e826e1d273689ed520fc3
But if the gap between two rebases is large, it's hard to say what
the
problem might be...
The old parent commit (ie, rebase before last rebase) was
https://github.com/mjsax/flink/commit/148395bcd81a93bcb1473e4e93f267edb3b71c7e
-Matthias
On 08/04/2015 08:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
What are the commits that you rebased on? Could you maybe narrow
down
what
caused the regression?
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 at 23:31 Matthias J. Sax <
mj...@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
wrote:
I only report failing tests after a rebase. ;)
-Matthias
On 08/03/2015 11:23 PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
Thanks for reporting it , Matthias. Will try to run Travis for
latest
Flink.
Tachyon test is a bit flaky. Maybe updating to latest release
could
help.
- Henry
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Matthias J. Sax
<mj...@informatik.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
Today, not a single built was successful completely. Please see
here:
Flink Streaming Core:
https://travis-ci.org/mjsax/flink/jobs/73938109
https://travis-ci.org/mjsax/flink/jobs/73951362
https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/73938124
https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/73899795
https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/73938122
https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/73952441
Flink Taychon:
https://travis-ci.org/apache/flink/jobs/73938123
-Matthias
