Hi, Am Mittwoch, dem 24.05.2023 um 08:51 -0700 schrieb [email protected]: > I'd proceed as is, document that on the release notes. If there would be > many complaints, I might consider to do a 18u1 nbm release.
oh nameless one, want to say who you are? But in general I agree. > On 5/24/23 01:25, Neil C Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 20:20, Matthias Bläsing > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > testing the voting candidate, I noticed, that the JS scanning can run > > > into a ConcurrentModificationException. > > ... > > > For me this is not a big problem as described above, but people using > > > plain JS in the IDE might face bigger problems. At least the message > > > log gets flooded and of of course you'll get annoying exception > > > bubbles. > > > > > > Sorry about that. > > That's fine! It happens. But this is a discussion thread, so what > > exactly are we discussing? How do you think we should proceed? I wanted to make people aware. If noone cares in the Vote, then it is not a problem. Now at least noone can say "Oh, that is surprising, damn...". > > I'm also concerned why this hasn't been picked up during the release > > candidate phase? Those are cheap to produce, voting candidates are > > not. In particular now we've moved to a consolidated vote. Are there > > things we could improve in our RC testing? Voting candidates should > > not need to be tested for functionality. This is in the voting instructions: [...] As well as checking any artefact functions correctly [...] Well, that was what I have been doing and yes I should have done it in RC. Greetings Matthias --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
