Re: [drlvm] java.vm.version

2010-03-10 Thread Mark Hindess
In message 3b3f27c61003091618j163a2573o69f6917da082a...@mail.gmail.com, Nathan Beyer writes: On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Mark Hindess mark.hind...@googlemail.com wrote: DRLVM current reports the java.vm.version system property as 11.2.0. It has done so since at least 2006-11-30. I

Re: [classlib][fdlib] Upgrade fdlibm5.2 to 5.3

2010-03-10 Thread Regis
On 2010-03-07 19:03, Mark Hindess wrote: In message4b933b24.9060...@gmail.com, Regis writes: On 2010-03-03 17:31, Mark Hindess wrote: +1 Thanks Deven. We should move to a process that downloads the upstream zip using the standard {check,fetch}-depends mechanism to make it easier to update

Re: [classlib][fdlib] Upgrade fdlibm5.2 to 5.3

2010-03-10 Thread Mark Hindess
In message 4b976763.5060...@gmail.com, Regis writes: On 2010-03-07 19:03, Mark Hindess wrote: In message4b933b24.9060...@gmail.com, Regis writes: On 2010-03-03 17:31, Mark Hindess wrote: +1 Thanks Deven. We should move to a process that downloads the upstream zip using the

Re: [general] Google Summer of Code

2010-03-10 Thread Oliver Deakin
Hi Marcos, Thanks for your interest in this project! The first step would be to fill in the ACQ as detailed below and submit it to the private@ mailing list. You will probably find it useful to read the Google Summer of Code FAQ [1] which will answer many questions you have - how to apply for

Re: [general] Google Summer of Code

2010-03-10 Thread Marcos Roriz
Cool, I'm filling the form right know. Does it need to be handwritten or I can fill digitally? 2010/3/10 Oliver Deakin oliver.dea...@googlemail.com Hi Marcos, Thanks for your interest in this project! The first step would be to fill in the ACQ as detailed below and submit it to the private@

Re: [general] Google Summer of Code

2010-03-10 Thread Oliver Deakin
It can be filled in digitally, but the signature at the bottom of the form should be hand written, scanned and sent along with the rest of the form. Regards, Oliver On 10/03/2010 14:06, Marcos Roriz wrote: Cool, I'm filling the form right know. Does it need to be handwritten or I can fill

Re: [build] Proposed changes

2010-03-10 Thread Alexey Varlamov
2010/3/10 Nathan Beyer ndbe...@apache.org: On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Mark Hindess mark.hind...@googlemail.com wrote: I plan to make some changes to the federated build. I'd like to fix use-cases like:  ant build-classlib assemble-stuff which currently don't work as you might expect

Re: [build] Proposed changes

2010-03-10 Thread Mark Hindess
In message f944d83d1003100658o1a083b6bu53dcb0923f16c...@mail.gmail.com, Alexey Varlamov writes: 2010/3/10 Nathan Beyer ndbe...@apache.org: On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Mark Hindess mark.hind...@googlemail.com wrote: I plan to make some changes to the federated build. [snip]

[website] Download page updated

2010-03-10 Thread Tim Ellison
I updated the download page for 5.0M13 and 6.0M1, and updated the news. seems the pubsub is stuck, so I'll hold off the announce until the website catches up. My approach to putting the 6.0M1 on the download page was simply to create more lists :-( if anyone has any design ideas to make it more

Re: [website] Download page updated

2010-03-10 Thread Tim Ellison
Unfortunately it looks like it could be a while before this is fixed. I'll continue to hold off on the announce until the download is available. Regards, Tim On 10/Mar/2010 16:41, Tim Ellison wrote: I updated the download page for 5.0M13 and 6.0M1, and updated the news. seems the pubsub is

Re: Rethinking testing conventions

2010-03-10 Thread Jesse Wilson
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Nathan Beyer ndbe...@apache.org wrote: One concept I've been working with is using annotations to describe the tests for the purposes of exclusions and for platform definition. The annotations can then be utilized in many ways via JUnit - method rules, request

Re: Rethinking testing conventions

2010-03-10 Thread Charles Lee
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Nathan Beyer ndbe...@apache.org wrote: I've been experimenting with JUnit4 extensions in an attempt to find a more simple approach to our basic testing needs. The two major requirements that I see in Harmony's test infrastructure (at least the classlib stuff)

Re: Rethinking testing conventions

2010-03-10 Thread Nathan Beyer
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Charles Lee littlee1...@gmail.com wrote: +1. @Platform is the specified annotation or is the annotation used in junit4? Platform and Exclude would be a custom annotations - perhaps org.apache.harmony.test.Platform. Then there'd be a custom runner or filter

Re: Rethinking testing conventions

2010-03-10 Thread Nathan Beyer
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Jesse Wilson jessewil...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Nathan Beyer ndbe...@apache.org wrote: One concept I've been working with is using annotations to describe the tests for the purposes of exclusions and for platform definition. The

Re: Rethinking testing conventions

2010-03-10 Thread Nathan Beyer
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Charles Lee littlee1...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Nathan Beyer ndbe...@apache.org wrote: I've been experimenting with JUnit4 extensions in an attempt to find a more simple approach to our basic testing needs. The two major requirements