Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> [Auto-generated mail] >> >> *tinderbox_trunk15* 489597/2006-12-22 11:12:19 CET >> >> Failed Tests OK Skip Duration Suite >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> *Jvm: 1.5* >> SunOS-5.10_i86pc-i386 >> 26 517 491 0 118.48% derbyall >> UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 0.00% >> org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.suites.All >> Details in >> http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk15/jvm1.5/testing/Limited/testSummary-489597.html >> >> Attempted failure analysis in >> >> http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk15/jvm1.5/FailReports/489597.html >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Changes in >> http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk15/UpdateInfo/489597.txt >> >> ( All results in http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/ ) > > Hmm... It seems like the Tinderbox test ran with jvm 1.6, but produced > JDBC 3.0 output. Doesn't the Tinderbox test normally use jvm 1.5? I > would guess it's failing because the jars were built without JDBC 4.0 > support. >
I decided to change the Tinderbox test to use 1.6 but managed to specify the wrong ant.properties.... file :-( Hopefully correct on next run. -- Ole
