On 6/26/07, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I look at classlib failures:
org.apache.harmony.prefs.tests.java.util.prefs.AbstractPreferencesTest
- discussed in the other thread. This test requires direct connect to
the internet.
Hmm, ... I'm in doubts. The question is to run tests against new
snapshot should I exclude them locally too or commit the update for
the exclude list to SVN repository (just for the record)?
Thanks,
Stepan.
java.awt.geom.Arc2DTest - failed on snapshot but passed on current
revision (as -Dtest.jre.home=<my_build_of_drlvm>
thanks, Vladimir
On 6/26/07, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/25/07, Ivan Popov wrote:
> > I see two failures of jdktools tests, which are not new ones.
> >
> > Test org.apache.harmony.jpda.tests.jdwp.VirtualMachine.HoldEventsTest
> > is known as intemittently failing on Windows (HARMONY-3508) and now it
> > fails on Linux too. It make sense to move this test to common exclude
> > list.
> >
> > Test mentioned as vmcarsh
> > (org.apache.harmony.jpda.tests.jdwp.ThreadReference.FramesTest) failed
> > due to exceeded timeout for tests run. You may want to increase
> > default timeout (900000 milliseconds), e.g, specifying
> > -Dhy.test.timeout=1200000 .
>
> Ivan, I've increased timeout to 30000000 but I still see test crash.
>
> -Stepan.
>
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Ivan
> >
> > On 6/25/07, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 6/25/07, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 2007/6/25, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > On 6/25/07, Mark Hindess wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 25 June 2007 at 13:59, "Stepan Mishura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > > > > On 6/24/07, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have passed our code freeze date for M2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mikhail,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just to be clear - M1 milestone published snapshots include build
for
> > > > > > > Windows x86, Linux (libstdc++ v5 and libstdc++ v6) x86 and Windows
> > > > > > > x86_64.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you think it would be possible to produce source snapshots? The
> > > > > > Apache release FAQ (at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html )
says:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All
> > > > > > releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make
> > > > > > changes to the software being released. In some cases,
binary/bytecode
> > > > > > packages are also produced as a convenience to users that might
> > > > > > not have the appropriate tools to build a compiled version of the
> > > > > > source. In all such cases, the binary/bytecode package must have
> > > > > > the same version number as the source release and may only add
> > > > > > binary/bytecode files that are the result of compiling that
version of
> > > > > > the source code release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently binaries are our primary artifact. I appreciated that it
may
> > > > > > be a little late to try to correct this for this release, but I
think it
> > > > > > is important that we try to correct this before we get too
comfortable
> > > > > > with the current release process.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd suggest to switch to using source snapshots right after M2.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It should now be possible to do:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ant bundle_src
> > > > > > mkdir /tmp/build
> > > > > > tar -C /tmp/build -xzf
target/apache-harmony-src-r550411-snapshot.tar.gz
> > > > > > cd /tmp/build/harmony-src-550411
> > > > > > ant -Dauto.fetch=true
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which would seem to me to be more in-keeping with the Apache release
> > > > > > guidelines.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On this subject, I'd like to permission to commit a patch to
correct the
> > > > > > top-level directory name in the source tar.gz/zip files from:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > harmony-src-550411
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > apache-harmony-src-r550411
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm OK with it.
> > > >
> > > > will it require rebuild of the release candidate?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think it is not required.
> > >
> > > OK, I've built and uploaded milestone candidates (r550333) for
> > > - Linux x86/x86_64 libstdc++ v5 (and v6 for x86 is in progress)
> > > - Windows x86/x86_64
> > >
> > > The snapshots are available from "snapshots v5" page[1] (or can be
> > > taken from dir [2])
> > >
> > > [1] http://harmony.apache.org/snapshots_v5.html
> > > [2] http://people.apache.org/builds/harmony/snapshots/r550333/
> > >
> > > -Stepan.
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Mikhail
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Stepan.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The format of the archive names changed over time and these have
become
> > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Mark.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I assume that we still aimed to x86 architecture and I need to
build
> > > > > > > milestone candidates for:
> > > > > > > - Windows x86
> > > > > > > - Linux x86. BWT, again for both libstdc++ versions?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And what about x86_64?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I said M1 includes Windows x86_64. Should we publish them to
let
> > > > > > > the community test them to see how good they are?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Stepan.
