Any blockers left for 2.9?

[Martin Fick]

I would like to release 2.9 tomorrow, any blockers left that
really should get in?

-Martin

--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code
Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

[Martin Fick]

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 04:57:16 PM Martin Fick wrote:
> I would like to release 2.9 tomorrow, any blockers left
> that really should get in?

These are way out of date I think?

http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/list?q=label:Blocking-2.9

[David Pursehouse]

On 06/25/2014 07:57 AM, Martin Fick wrote:
> I would like to release 2.9 tomorrow, any blockers left that
> really should get in?
>

The database corruption fix [1] was uploaded on stable-2.8 and I had
hoped it would get merged up into stable-2.9 before the final release.

Do we want to get this in? The review seems to have stalled.

[1] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/57825/

[David Ostrovsky]

Am Mittwoch, 25. Juni 2014 03:08:18 UTC+2 schrieb David Pursehouse:

On 06/25/2014 07:57 AM, Martin Fick wrote:
> I would like to release 2.9 tomorrow, any blockers left that
> really should get in?
>

The database corruption fix [1] was uploaded on stable-2.8 and I had
hoped it would get merged up into stable-2.9 before the final release.

Do we want to get this in?

Well, that's kind of optional now. What we definitely want to have in is gwtorm

transaction support for Jdbc dialects [2]. It was approved by Dave already.

With [2] in place, we don't care much about  [1] anymore as we are able to

recover.

[2] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/57851

[Neil Leathers]

> > The database corruption fix [1] was uploaded on stable-2.8 and I had
> > hoped it would get merged up into stable-2.9 before the final release.

...

> Well, that's kind of optional now.

I would think that the known issues of database corruption should be fixed before releasing.

The mentioned [1] (ChangeMergeQueue: Fix race condition) did get merged. Also, [3] (Executing CherryPick.writeCherryPickCommit() in a transaction.) was mentioned as necessary for fixing Cherry-Pick merges on June 14th. Finally the gwtorm [2] fix. Checking the topic [4] these seem to be the three patches.

[1] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/57825/
[2] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/57851
[3] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/57860/
[4] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/q/topic:database-corruption

For reference the message on June 14th with subject "Re: Database corruption: collision between multiple background and manual triggered jobs" had the statement:

> So the fix for all database curruption problems [1], [2], [3], [4] is the
> combination of: [5] and [6].
>
> [1] https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=2034
> [2] https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=2246
> [3] https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=2383
> [4] https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=2702
> [5] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/57860
> [6] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/57851

Neil Leathers

[David Pursehouse]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Neil Leathers <neil.r....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The database corruption fix [1] was uploaded on stable-2.8 and I had
> > hoped it would get merged up into stable-2.9 before the final release.

...

> Well, that's kind of optional now.

I would think that the known issues of database corruption should be fixed before releasing.

The mentioned [1] (ChangeMergeQueue: Fix race condition) did get merged. Also, [3] (Executing CherryPick.writeCherryPickCommit() in a transaction.) was mentioned as necessary for fixing Cherry-Pick merges on June 14th. Finally the gwtorm [2] fix. Checking the topic [4] these seem to be the three patches.

[3] is also now submitted on stable-2.8, and stable-2.8 is merged up to stable-2.9.

That only leaves the gwtorm fix [2] remaining.

 

[1] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/57825/
[2] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/57851
[3] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/57860/
[4] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/q/topic:database-corruption

For reference the message on June 14th with subject "Re: Database corruption: collision between multiple background and manual triggered jobs" had the statement:

> So the fix for all database curruption problems [1], [2], [3], [4] is the
> combination of: [5] and [6].
>
> [1] https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=2034
> [2] https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=2246
> [3] https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=2383
> [4] https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=2702
> [5] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/57860
> [6] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/57851

Neil Leathers

--
--
To unsubscribe, email repo-discuss...@googlegroups.com
More info at http://groups.google.com/group/repo-discuss?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Repo and Gerrit Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to repo-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Vlad Canţîru]

Would be great to get the gtworm fixed in 2.9 as this affects us periodically.

Best Regards,
Vladimir Cantiru

[David Ostrovsky]

Am Mittwoch, 25. Juni 2014 00:57:22 UTC+2 schrieb MartinFick:

I would like to release 2.9 tomorrow, any blockers left that
really should get in?

We are testing all Jdbc dialects for upcoming 2.8.6.1 release, and

it seems like this change [1] broke Oracle. See [2] for more details.

Note: i don't care much about this dialect, but may be others do.

[1] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/57216

[2] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/58234

[David Ostrovsky]

Am Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2014 22:39:09 UTC+2 schrieb David Ostrovsky:

Am Mittwoch, 25. Juni 2014 00:57:22 UTC+2 schrieb MartinFick:

I would like to release 2.9 tomorrow, any blockers left that
really should get in?

We are testing all Jdbc dialects for upcoming 2.8.6.1 release, and

it seems like this change [1] broke Oracle.

Fixed in [3].

[3] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/58282

[Matthew Webber]

I only just opened ticket 2757 - not technically a blocker, but is required to get the new feature GitHub OAuth authentication working through a proxy (which must be a fairly common requirement).

I'm not sure whether it was decided whether this new feature (GitHub OAuth authentication) needed to be in 2.9, but I was argue that there's a pressing need to it, since Google fairly recently removed support for new users of OpenID. This has caught out a few people who started using Gerrit since the Google change.

Thanks

Matthew

[Edwin Kempin]

I believe all blockers for 2.9 have been addressed and at the moment there are no pending changes for stable-2.9 that look important.

Can we move on with the 2.9 final release?

[1] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/q/status:open+project:gerrit+branch:stable-2.9

[Luca Milanesio]

Hi Edwin,

I found a couple of days ago that JavaScript plugins are completely broken :-(

Just try to drop a .js file onto $GERRIT_SITE/plugins and Gerrit GUI wouldn't load.

See my fix at:

https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/58335/

Think this is a serious bug to fix.

Luca.

[Edwin Kempin]

2014-07-10 9:37 GMT+02:00 Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com>:

Hi Edwin,

I found a couple of days ago that JavaScript plugins are completely broken :-(

Just try to drop a .js file onto $GERRIT_SITE/plugins and Gerrit GUI wouldn't load.

See my fix at:

https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/58335/

Think this is a serious bug to fix.

Can you push the fix to stable-2.9?

[David Pursehouse]

On 07/10/2014 04:39 PM, Edwin Kempin wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014-07-10 9:37 GMT+02:00 Luca Milanesio <luca.mi...@gmail.com

> <mailto:luca.mi...@gmail.com>>:

>
> Hi Edwin,
> I found a couple of days ago that JavaScript plugins are completely
> broken :-(
>
> Just try to drop a .js file onto $GERRIT_SITE/plugins and Gerrit GUI
> wouldn't load.
>
> See my fix at:
> https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/58335/
>
> Think this is a serious bug to fix.
>
> Can you push the fix to stable-2.9?
>

I already cherry-picked Luca's change.

https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/#/c/58420/

[Luca Milanesio]

Building now to put my Verified+1 on it :-)

Luca.

[Edwin Kempin]

OK, this one is done. Anything left that prevents 2.9 final?

[David Ostrovsky]

Nope. 

[Mark Derricutt]

On 11 Jul 2014, at 2:01, David Ostrovsky wrote:

> OK, this one is done. Anything left that prevents 2.9 final? 
>
> Nope. 

+100 on a release :)

After listening to the Luca's interview I'm more eager to see this out,
and check out the combined diff view for a series of reviews he was
mentioning.

Mark