[Swift-devel] duplicated job submission in swift-0.92?

Sat Apr 2 12:45:49 CDT 2011

That's right- I will run it again today to confirm.

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, Michael Wilde wrote:

> Mihael,
>
> My understanding is that Justin used a binary search approach: he kept 
> extracting a point-in-time snapshot from SVN, and built and tested it, 
> selecting dates in binary-search mode until he narrowed down the 
> revision range that caused the failure to between r3835 and r3837.
>
> Justin can confirm this when he sees this message, but don't count on 
> confirmation very soon this weekend. Best to do you own tests to verify 
> (or I can if that would help).
>
> - Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> That's possible, looking at the code.
>>
>> Though what makes you think it's that?
>>
>> Mihael
>>
>> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 17:33 -0500, Justin M Wozniak wrote:
>>> I found that it appeared between Swift r3835 and r3837.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Michael Wilde wrote:
>>>
>>>> And Swift 0.91 works OK - it does *not* exhibit the twice-each
>>>> bug.
>>>>
>>>> Justin: when you went backwards down the Swift 0.92 branch on
>>>> Thursday
>>>> morning, what did you find in terms of where it appeared the bug
>>>> was
>>>> introduced?
>>>>
>>>> - Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> I think we mist-spoke: The posted release 0.92 also exhibits the
>>>>> twice-each bug as far as I acn tell.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mihael, Justin: can you test asap to confirm or refute that
>>>>> observation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> which swift: ~/swift/rev/swift-0.92/bin/swift
>>>>>
>>>>> com$ swift -version
>>>>> Swift svn swift-r4157 cog-r3056
>>>>>
>>>>> com$ cd ~/swift/lab
>>>>> com$ cat zz3.swift
>>>>> int arr[];
>>>>>
>>>>> arr[0]=1;
>>>>> arr[1]=2;
>>>>>
>>>>> foreach a in arr {
>>>>> trace("for", a);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> com$ swift zz3.swift
>>>>> Swift svn swift-r4157 cog-r3056
>>>>>
>>>>> RunID: 20110401-1645-yyy87p39
>>>>> Progress:
>>>>> SwiftScript trace: for, 2
>>>>> SwiftScript trace: for, 1
>>>>> SwiftScript trace: for, 1
>>>>> SwiftScript trace: for, 2
>>>>> Final status:
>>>>> com$
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> I think both are good as they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you like me to send it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mihael
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 20:57 -0500, Michael Wilde wrote:
>>>>>>> And I will send this to swift-user:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dear Swift Users,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On March 29 we discovered that the Release 0.92 branches of the
>>>>>>> Swift and CoG trees were changed after the release and a
>>>>>>> concurrency
>>>>>>> bug was introduced. If you are running Swift from this *source
>>>>>>> code*
>>>>>>> base, please revert back to a known-working release such as the
>>>>>>> 0.92
>>>>>>> binary release if at all possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're working on restoring the 0.92 SVN branch to the correct
>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>> and will report back to this email list when that is done."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anything else to say? Feel free to send this out, adjusted as
>>>>>>> needed, or just tell me what to change and I will.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> Please check this proposed warning on the Downloads page and
>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>> know if its what we need there:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/~wilde/swift/downloads/index.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also fixed the 0.91 typo (but the downloads dont actually
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> this test web. I think they will once this is committed and
>>>>>>>> pushed
>>>>>>>> live).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 20:14 -0500, Michael Wilde wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>>>> We decided the following:
>>>>>>>>>>>> - I will revert the changes in the 0.92 branch
>>>>>>>>>>>> - re-commit bug fixes that were committed after the
>>>>>>>>>>>> merge
>>>>>>>>>>>> - merge the 0.92 branch to trunk
>>>>>>>>>>>> - fix the problems in trunk
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good. But when and how does the fix get to users?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The package(s) are fine. Though we should probably also have
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>>> package. The merge was done after the package(s) were
>>>>>>>>>> uploaded
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> swift site.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, great!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This only affects folks who have checked out from SVN the
>>>>>>>>>> 0.92
>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>> after the merge 9 days (or so) ago.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmm - I question that. The release we use, based on 0.92 on
>>>>>>>>> Beagle,
>>>>>>>>> shows the twice-each error, and it was made on Feb 25, about
>>>>>>>>> 35
>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>> ago. Does this merit clarification?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We should send an email to the user list once this is fixed.
>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> want to send an email warning them not to check out from SVN
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> download the precompiled package instead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK. I cant say that this will reach everyone. Perhaps some
>>>>>>>>> status
>>>>>>>>> notes on the Download page are in order. The 0.91 link there
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>>>>> so we need to fix that page anyways.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am a bit confused though. I would have expected the
>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>> with some announcement of some form.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed. We kept this low profile because we were trying to
>>>>>>>>> coordinate
>>>>>>>>> it with a Web change that we never accomplished. And we've
>>>>>>>>> lost
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> habit of swift-user announcements but got to get back to
>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>> So, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Either create a 0.92.1 release (sounds hard based on
>>>>>>>>>>> above)
>>>>>>>>>>> or create a 0.93 release (in which case should we create
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> 0.93
>>>>>>>>>>> branch from trunk as soon as this is fixed?)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How long to re-test? (Thats a question for Sarah, Justin,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> Ketan)
>>>>>>>>>>> Could this include the Cray support mods?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No! Fixing a problem is not a venue for introducing untested
>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> a release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I meant the Cray feature for 0.93 not 0.92.1
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that should be tested.
>>>>>>>>> But its being used pretty heavily.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it could be discussed separately :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mihael
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Michael Wilde
>>>>>>>>> Computation Institute, University of Chicago
>>>>>>>>> Mathematics and Computer Science Division
>>>>>>>>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Swift-devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
>>>>>>>>> http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Michael Wilde
>>>>>>>> Computation Institute, University of Chicago
>>>>>>>> Mathematics and Computer Science Division
>>>>>>>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Swift-devel mailing list
>>>>>>>> Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
>>>>>>>> http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Michael Wilde
>>>>> Computation Institute, University of Chicago
>>>>> Mathematics and Computer Science Division
>>>>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Swift-devel mailing list
>>>>> Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
>>>>> http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>

-- 
Justin M Wozniak