you can just manually delete build/red5/server/dist build/red5/client/dist build/lib dist
to save your time :) On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM, seba.wag...@gmail.com < seba.wag...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Maxim: That is really great! > I am looking at the Test that fails but I have not found out yet why it > fails. > I need to clean my workspace and Ivy unfortunatelly as it seems. > > Sebastian > > > 2013/3/26 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > > Here is the JUnit report of the latest trunk > > > > > https://builds.apache.org/job/openmeetings/ws/singlewebapp/build/junit/report/index.html > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Hello Sebastian, > > > > > > I'm ready to commit changed build.xml performing JUnit tests oon each > > build > > > Unfortunatelly currently 1 test is failed: > > > > > > TestHashMapSession testHashMapSession Failure expected:<0> but was:<1> > > > > > > Can you please take a look at it? (trunk) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, seba.wag...@gmail.com < > > > seba.wag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya) > > >> => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the > > >> community to help us testing. > > >> > > >> *1) there were no issues reported by users* > > >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I > > >> also > > >> did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited > to > > >> test. > > >> *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 > > months* > > >> I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete => > > >> release". That model will not work for our future. > > >> And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that. > > >> > > >> IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test / > > click > > >> through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our > current > > >> project. > > >> For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup > import > > >> was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work > that > > >> you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now. > > >> It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what > test > > >> fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits > > missing > > >> to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what > > >> keeps us away from doing that? > > >> > > >> Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the > > >> tests are just outdated. > > >> But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run > > >> automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment, > just > > >> zero tests run automated. > > >> This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can > test a > > >> lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests. > > >> The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody > > else > > >> involved has done for 2.1 > > >> => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ... > > >> An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1 > > needs > > >> no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that > > in > > >> any sense. Every release does need a full test. > > >> And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number > of > > >> committers. > > >> > > >> It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to > improve > > >> that in the future? > > >> > > >> The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the > > >> project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ? > > >> > > >> From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add > > >> value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a > "feature" > > >> that adds any value to the end user from that perspective. > > >> So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of > > >> manual > > >> click-through tests that we do now with every release ?! > > >> I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and > > >> clicking > > >> through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?! > > >> > > >> Sebastian > > >> > > >> > > >> 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > >> > > >> > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, > Yuliya) > > >> > additional causes are: > > >> > 1) there were no issues reported by users > > >> > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 > > months > > >> > > > >> > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should > > have > > >> 2-3 > > >> > month > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, seba.wag...@gmail.com < > > >> > seba.wag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Maxim, > > >> > > > > >> > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed > > on > > >> > > already happen? > > >> > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC? > > >> > > > > >> > > Sebastian > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > >> > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings > > >> 2.1.0 > > >> > > RC3 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Full Changelog: > > >> > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Release artefacts: > > >> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E): > > >> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > [ ] +1 approve > > >> > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > >> > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > My vote is +1. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > WBR > > >> > > > Maxim aka solomax > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Sebastian Wagner > > >> > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > > >> > > http://www.webbase-design.de > > >> > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > > >> > > seba.wag...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > WBR > > >> > Maxim aka solomax > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Sebastian Wagner > > >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > > >> http://www.webbase-design.de > > >> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > > >> seba.wag...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > WBR > > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > WBR > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > -- > Sebastian Wagner > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > http://www.webbase-design.de > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > seba.wag...@gmail.com > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
