On 11/26/2007 02:12 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007 4:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please provide your input to release.
>
>>[ ] APR-iconv-1.2.1
>
> diffs from prior release look reasonable (punted on reviewing Windows
> build changes just as I normall
On Nov 15, 2007 4:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please provide your input to release.
>[ +1] APR-iconv-1.2.1
diffs from prior release look reasonable (punted on reviewing Windows
build changes just as I normally punt on testing them)
I had to manually define API_U
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/20/2007 11:30 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please provide your input to release.
[+1] APR-iconv-1.2.1
Please note I didn't see much feedback yet one way or another on
APR-iconv-1.2.1 nor
What can be done with APR-iconv, except
On 11/20/2007 11:30 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Please provide your input to release.
>>
>> [+1] APR-0.9.17
>> [+1] APR-1.2.12
>> [XX] APR-util-1.2.11
>> [+1] APR-iconv-1.2.1
>
> Please note I've withdrawn apr-util-1.2.11 from consideration, and a
> 1
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please provide your input to release.
[+1] APR-0.9.17
[+1] APR-1.2.12
[XX] APR-util-1.2.11
[+1] APR-iconv-1.2.1
Please note I've withdrawn apr-util-1.2.11 from consideration, and a 1.2.12
package
test will be announced once I've copied up and synced.
I'll
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 21:47 +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> I haven't commited for testdate so far.
Yeah, sorry. I confused a patch sent to the list with a commit. I'll
blame it on caffeine deficiency, although old age is more likely ;-)
--
Bojan
On 11/19/2007 10:04 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Did you have a look at diffs between 1.2.x and trunk for apr_date.c?
>
> The 1.2.x branch is missing
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=233425 (combo of bug
> fixes and support for a new date format and new testcases)
> http://svn.a
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/19/2007 12:38 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Both apr-0.9.17 and apr-1.2.12 fail SHM tests:
0.9.17:
-
starting consumer.
starting producer.
Name-based shared memory test FAILED: [2] No such file or directory
Name-based shared memory test
On Nov 19, 2007 3:47 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/19/2007 12:38 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 16:26 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >> Please provide your input to release.
> >>
> >>[+1] APR-0.9.17
> >>[+1] APR-1.2.12
> >>[-1] APR-u
On 11/19/2007 12:38 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 16:26 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Please provide your input to release.
>>
>>[+1] APR-0.9.17
>>[+1] APR-1.2.12
>>[-1] APR-util-1.2.11
>>[ ] APR-iconv-1.2.1
>
> Fedora 8, i686 and x86_64.
>
> Both apr
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 16:26 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Please provide your input to release.
>
>[+1] APR-0.9.17
>[+1] APR-1.2.12
>[-1] APR-util-1.2.11
>[ ] APR-iconv-1.2.1
Fedora 8, i686 and x86_64.
Both apr-0.9.17 and apr-1.2.12 fail SHM tests:
0.9.17:
--
On Nov 15, 2007 4:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please provide your input to release.
>
>[ ] APR-0.9.17
>[+1] APR-1.2.12
>[+1] APR-util-1.2.11
>[ ] APR-iconv-1.2.1
Solaris 10/x86_64
Sun Studio 11
apr 1.2.11 vs. apr 1.2.12
tested in 32-bit and 64-bit
On Nov 15, 2007 6:19 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2007 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Please provide your input to release.
> > Ubuntu 7.10 kernel 2.6.22-14, x86
> > testsock: //bin/ba
On 11/16/2007 10:44 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> On 11/15/2007 10:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Please provide your input to release.
>>
>> [+1] APR-0.9.17
>> [+1] APR-1.2.12
>> [-1] APR-util-1.2.11
>> [ ] APR-iconv-1.2.1
>>
>>
>>
>> I've already noticed I should have scuttled
On 11/16/2007 10:44 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> Solaris 10: All OK except:
>
> testpoll: /Line 314: expected <5>, but saw <4>
> FAILED 1 of 13
> testshm : -Line 254: Error destroying shared memory block (22):
> Invalid argument
>
> FAILED 1 of 6
> Failed Tests
On 11/15/2007 10:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Please provide your input to release.
>
> [+1] APR-0.9.17
> [ ] APR-1.2.12
> [-1] APR-util-1.2.11
> [ ] APR-iconv-1.2.1
>
>
>
> I've already noticed I should have scuttled testreslist current
> implementation,
> but that's 20/20
On Nov 16, 2007 1:19 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2007 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Please provide your input to release.
> > Ubuntu 7.10 kernel 2.6.22-14, x86
> >
> > Details:
> >
> >>[-1] A
On Nov 15, 2007 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please provide your input to release.
Ubuntu 7.10 kernel 2.6.22-14, x86
>
>[+1] APR-0.9.17
>[-1] APR-1.2.12
>[-1] APR-util-1.2.11
>[+1] APR-iconv-1.2.1 -- I only built it! aren't there any tests for this?
>
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007 11:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please provide your input to release.
Ubuntu 7.10 kernel 2.6.22-14, x86
Details:
[-1] APR-1.2.12
on the first run:
testshm : FAILED 1 of 6
Correct; this is not a regressi
Please provide your input to release.
[ ] APR-0.9.17
[ ] APR-1.2.12
[ ] APR-util-1.2.11
[ ] APR-iconv-1.2.1
I've already noticed I should have scuttled testreslist current implementation,
but that's 20/20 hindsight and it sure isn't a showstopper.
20 matches
Mail list logo