Thanks. If you can't reproduce, I'll call it a local glitch and roll
1.6.6.
-Hyrum
On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> Can't look until late tonight. I think the mime error is expected
> (still failing on trunk as I haven't adjusted the expectation).
> First i've heard of segfault in 1.6 tho.
>
> --
> Joe
>
> From handheld. Sorry for typos.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:54 AM
> To: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
> Cc: Joe Swatosh <joe.swatosh_at_gmail.com>; dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: ruby test failure, 1.6.6 roll on hold (was Re: 1.6.6 on
> Oct. 14)
>
>
> On Oct 14, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org
>>> wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 28, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's that time again: time for another great-tasting release of
>>>>>> Subversion! This one will be baked on Oct. 14 as Subversion
>>>>>> 1.6.6.
>>>>>> Get your nominations and votes in, to help make this the best
>>>>>> release
>>>>>> yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ Note to translators, et. al.: I'm not sure what time on Oct. 14
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 1.6.6 tarball will roll, but you can safely assume that it will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> after 0000 UTC. In other words, if your translations and other
>>>>>> updates are on the branch by the end of the day on Oct. 13,
>>>>>> you've
>>>>>> nothing to fear about missing the deadline. The same applies for
>>>>>> votes and nominations in STATUS. ]
>>>>>
>>>>> T minus 6.5 days, and counting.
>>>>
>>>> One more reminder: I'll be rolling 1.6.6 sometime after 0000 UTC on
>>>> Oct. 14. It may be several hours later, but any changes approved
>>>> in
>>>> STATUS and translations on the 1.6.x branch are guaranteed to be in
>>>> the release.
>>>>
>>>> Please nominate, review and vote on items in STATUS in the next
>>>> couple
>>>> of days.
>>>
>>> Getting ready to roll the tarball, I ran 'make check-swig-rb' on the
>>> 1.6.x branch. I get the following segfault:
>>>
>>> test_merge(SvnClientTest): /home/hwright/dev/svn-1.6.x/subversion/
>>> bindings/swig/ruby/test/my-assertions.rb:31: [BUG] Segmentation
>>> fault
>>> ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [x86_64-linux]
>>>
>>> I'm planning on holding the roll until we determine the status of
>>> this
>>> bug.
>>
>> I am not getting this problem. But I did have a test failure. I do
>> not know that this same failure did not also happen with other 1.6.x
>> releases:
>>
>> Started
>> ..............................................................................................F
>> ..........................................................................................................................
>> Finished in 535.915051 seconds.
>>
>> 1) Failure:
>> test_mime_type_detect_with_type_map(SvnCoreTest)
>> [/Users/mphippard/work/svn-1.6.x/subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/test/
>> test_core.rb:631]:
>> <Svn::Error::BadFilename> exception expected but none was thrown.
>>
>> 219 tests, 1483 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors
>
> Digging further, I see the following:
>
> test_merge(SvnClientTest):
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> [Switching to Thread 0x7fad06c586f0 (LWP 13356)]
> 0x00007fad0151cf46 in apr_hash_next (hi=0x1a01210) at tables/
> apr_hash.c:128
> 128 hi->this = hi->ht->array[hi->index++];
> (gdb) backtrace
> #0 0x00007fad0151cf46 in apr_hash_next (hi=0x1a01210) at tables/
> apr_hash.c:128
> #1 0x00007fad051449c9 in c2r_hash_with_key_convert (hash=0x1a01200,
> key_conv=0x7fad05142edc <c2r_string>, key_ctx=0x0,
> value_conv=0x7fad05142c0f <svn_swig_rb_from_swig_type>,
> value_ctx=0x7fad053a5348)
> at subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/libsvn_swig_ruby/swigutil_rb.c:
> 1409
> #2 0x00007fad05144a7c in c2r_hash (hash=0x1a01200,
> value_conv=0x7fad05142c0f <svn_swig_rb_from_swig_type>,
> ctx=0x7fad053a5348)
> at subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/libsvn_swig_ruby/swigutil_rb.c:
> 1429
> #3 0x00007fad05144ae8 in svn_swig_rb_apr_hash_to_hash_swig_type
> (hash=0x1a01200,
> type_name=0x7fad053a5348 "svn_log_changed_path_t *")
> at subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/libsvn_swig_ruby/swigutil_rb.c:
> 1447
> #4 0x00007fad05364a00 in _wrap_svn_log_entry_t_changed_paths_get
> (argc=0,
> argv=0x0, self=140381006173800) at subversion/bindings/swig/ruby/
> core.c:5171
> #5 0x00007fad06791c40 in rb_call0 (klass=140381119398840,
> recv=140381006173800,
> id=16729, oid=16729, argc=0, argv=0x0, body=0x7fad06c131e8,
> flags=<value optimized out>) at eval.c:5904
> #6 0x00007fad06791dfa in rb_call (klass=140381119398840,
> recv=140381006173800,
> mid=16729, argc=0, argv=0x0, scope=0, self=140381005113880) at
> eval.c:6151
> #7 0x00007fad0678bcf0 in rb_eval (self=140381005113880, n=<value
> optimized out>)
> at eval.c:3492
> ...
>
> I can't reproduce this when running the test singly, though.
>
> If others can't reproduce, I'll consider it an anomaly and continue to
> roll.
>
> -Hyrum
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2407714
Received on 2009-10-14 22:02:36 CEST