Mark,
Does it make sense to add the test coverage script into the step 3), as
the tools in Harmony-564?
Mark Hindess wrote:
On 8 June 2006 at 8:01, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting. I wasn't thinking of having unit or implementation tests
in here, as those still s
Tim Ellison wrote:
Yep, in fact recent builds of Eclipse can cope with the kernel jars if
you specify -Dpde.allowCycles=true as well as -Dpde.jreProfile=none on
the launch-line.
Hello Tim,
I launch Eclipse 3.2 RC7 with options "-Xms256M -Xmx256M -vm
D:\jdk\RI\jdk1.5.0_06\bin\javaw -Dpde.
Latest Harmony API source coverage by Harmony API unit tests results I
stored at wiki page
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Coverage_information
I'm going to refresh it bi-weekly (seems, it is enough for coverage).
I think we have got a agreement on the test naming convention[1], but
for sur
I use JIRA filters to sort things out, it seems to be more convenient
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/6/12, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
cool -- I'd be included to simplify the categorization though, to just
New, Updated, and Fixed (i.e. to be whatever state the issue ended up in
at the end of the wee
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > I've been working with the java.util.concurrent code to see what we'd
> need
> > to have in place to get this code to be a part of Harmony.
> >
> >
> >
> > System.nanoTime() - A number of the c
Sorry if I was confusing, the PriorityQueue is just a dependency of the
j.u.c. There are a few classes that us it internally, including the
PriorityBlockingQueue.
> -Original Message-
> From: Paulex Yang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:18 AM
> To: harmony-dev@incu
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
> > You beat me to this update by hours -- I was holding off because I
> noticed
> > that FeatureDescriptorTest was currently an excluded test and got
> dragged
> > into that for a bit.
>
> Sorry,
Ivan,
Please note that two guys who worked for me on ORP
(http://orp.sourceforge.net/ ) spent 2-3 years building and tuning the
train algorithm. We could never get the performance to acceptable
level. Ultimately we ditched the train algorithm and built GCV4 in
less than 3 months. GCV4 was neve
Geir Magnusson Jr skrev den 12-06-2006 20:10:
Would be a nifty feature - to tell your IDE to ignore a file...
Eclipse can do that. Right click on given Java file, and locate the
"Remove from Build Path" menu item.
Very handy in a pinch.
--
Thorbjørn
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cr
That's working much better now. Thanks George.
-Mark.
On 12 June 2006 at 19:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: gharley
> Date: Mon Jun 12 12:17:12 2006
> New Revision: 413727
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=413727&view=rev
> Log:
> Another attempt at fixing the unstable (on Linux
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Since we want to keep ARCHIVE working throughout we can create a branch
> if you think the pack200 dev will be dangerous (I think we can handle it
> in-place, but
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> Tim Ellison wrote:
Since we want to keep ARCHIVE working throughout we can create a branch
if you think the pack200 dev will be dangerous (I think we can handle it
in-place, but whatever).
>>> Why a bran
Hi Mark,
I committed that test earlier today as part of the HARMONY-41 patch.
I've just now checked in a slight modification to the test to see if we
can flush the source of the problem.
Best regards,
George
Mark Hindess wrote:
Seen this fail a couple of times on linux with the rather unhel
Seen this fail a couple of times on linux with the rather unhelpful
error:
expected:<...bytesbytesbytesbytesbytes> but was:<...>
junit.framework.ComparisonFailure: expected:<...bytesbytesbytesbytesbytes>
but was:<...>
at
org.apache.harmony.tests.java.nio.channels.SinkChannelTest.test_w
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> Since we want to keep ARCHIVE working throughout we can create a branch
>>> if you think the pack200 dev will be dangerous (I think we can handle it
>>> in-place, but whatever).
>> Why a branch? can it just be out of the mai
cool -- I'd be included to simplify the categorization though, to just
New, Updated, and Fixed (i.e. to be whatever state the issue ended up in
at the end of the week).
Regards,
Tim
Mark Hindess wrote:
> Is there any interest in having summaries of JIRA activity sent to the
> list once a week? S
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Since we want to keep ARCHIVE working throughout we can create a branch
>> if you think the pack200 dev will be dangerous (I think we can handle it
>> in-place, but whatever).
>
> Why a branch? can it just be out of the mainline build? IOW, exc
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> You beat me to this update by hours -- I was holding off because I noticed
> that FeatureDescriptorTest was currently an excluded test and got dragged
> into that for a bit.
Sorry, didn't know that you were looking into it ... I have no emotional
attachment, just mopping up,
Nathan,
I'm working on the j.u.PriorityQueue (harmony-574), but I didn't find
anything related to atomic or lock on this class? The spec on this class
said:
*"Note that this implementation is not synchronized.* Multiple threads
should not access a PriorityQueue instance concurrently if any o
19 matches
Mail list logo
