So, you are +1 then? :-)
On 2/1/06, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Mark Womack wrote: > > > Well, it is a good nit. This particular test doesn't always fail > > though. Locally on my machine it failed once, and after looking at > > the code, I ran it again and it worked. My guess is that it has > > something to do with the copying of the config file not changing the > > date so that the watchdog triggers or conceiveably a bug in the > > FileWatchdog code someplace. > > > > There is something similar that I have mentioned related to the > > TimeBasedRolling scheme as well, though it does not seem to show up in > > the Gump radar. I get it fairly often locally. > > > > -Mark > > Gump is not consistently failing, but it isn't a desirable practice > to be issuing releases while Gump is failing or immediately after > Gump starts passing. The test was recently added at which time they > would pass on Windows but fail on most Unix platforms. I modified > them to get them to pass consistently on my boxes and apparently pass > inconsistently on Gump. I do not think it reflects a regression in > the code base, but either the fragility of the test or a bug that has > been latent in the code for some time. > > Omitting the test would not change the distribution since the unit > tests are not included. It would only silence Gump from reminding us > that we have either a fragile test or a latent bug. I think > releasing an alpha under these conditions, while undesirable, is > acceptable. >
