+1 from me too On 20/08/2008, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm fine with releasing now. I didn't like that the test results > couldn't be repeated. Since it was the test itself we can move ahead. > > Nathan > > > > On 8/20/08, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > "Nathan Beyer" writes: > >> > >> nathan:~$ update-alternatives --display javap > >> javap - status is auto. > >> link currently points to /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/bin/javap > >> /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/bin/javap - priority 63 > >> slave javap.1.gz: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/man/man1/javap.1.gz > >> Current `best' version is /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/bin/javap. > > > > Hopefully Sian will provide a quick fix for this common case. In the > > meantime, what is you position on M7? Do you think M7 needs a fix for > > this issue? Are there other must-fix issues that you consider blockers? > > > > I would not be unhappy to release r681495 as M7 since these are test > > issues rather than code issues and we have released with failures due > > to bad tests before. So I vote +1 on this thread. > > > > Of course, if Sian can provide a prompt fix for this test issue then she > > has my +1 to commit it and we can start another vote. > > > >> Perhaps using 'javap' isn't the most stable/portable approach. Can we > >> use one of the bytecode libraries we have already and run the class > >> files through that? > > > > I'm sure Sian is considering other options for M8. ;-) > > > > -Mark > > > > > > -- > Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com >
-- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
