Grr, my bad.
The new mainline release on Sunday flushed the queue and pushed
everything to the site properly.
2012/10/27 Vojtech Juranek :
> On Wednesday 24 October 2012 21:01:24 Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
>> RC posted.
>
> unfortunately it's not propagated to the mirrors and cannot be downloaded.
On Wednesday 24 October 2012 21:01:24 Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
> RC posted.
unfortunately it's not propagated to the mirrors and cannot be downloaded.
Could you (or someone with admin access - rtyler?) take a look and put it to
the mirrors?
Thanks
Vojta
> @Kohsuke would you mind re-spin RC to include this fix? It passed all tests
> [1].
or, taken into account that backported fix/workaround is just wrapping one line
into try-catch block, new RC is probably not needed at all. I'll start testing
today with original RC
Hi,
> Suggestion: backport f50316b which is pretty small and should be
> safe;
done
> Nickolay’s patch (if extended as mentioned above) would be about as
> good for a backport but has not been tested in trunk.
as this is not even in trunk yet, I don't include this patch
> I hope it is not to
2012/10/25 Vojtech Juranek
> FYI: on JonJ there are some failed tests because of time out [1], on our
> instance it passed without any failure [2], so there shouldn't be any
> regressions caused by backporting
>
> [1]
> https://ci.jenkins-ci.org/view/Jenkins%20core/job/jenkins_lts_branch/75/
> [2
RC posted.
2012/10/24 Vojtech Juranek :
> FYI: on JonJ there are some failed tests because of time out [1], on our
> instance it passed without any failure [2], so there shouldn't be any
> regressions caused by backporting
>
> [1] https://ci.jenkins-ci.org/view/Jenkins%20core/job/jenkins_lts_branc
FYI: on JonJ there are some failed tests because of time out [1], on our
instance it passed without any failure [2], so there shouldn't be any
regressions caused by backporting
[1] https://ci.jenkins-ci.org/view/Jenkins%20core/job/jenkins_lts_branch/75/
[2] http://ci.jboss.org/hudson/job/HTS-Jen
On Tuesday 23 October 2012 15:40:16 Jesse Glick wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 03:33 PM, Vojtech Juranek wrote:
> > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-15206
>
> You merged the main commit but not the follow-up 06514d2.
it's already there (got a notification from failing test
hudson.model.ViewT
> JENKINS-15494 [4] is too new I guess, by a couple of days.
>
>
> [1] https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-7214
> [2] https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-15206
> [3] https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-15226
> [4] https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-15494
[1,
Done
On Monday 22 October 2012 09:19:45 Nord, James wrote:
> I would like to nominate JENKINS-15382 [1]
>
> Not a critical or blocker, but it caused me some intermittent grief. (and
> I've been running this in production backported to 1.466.2 thanks to
> Cloudbees)
>
> /James
>
> [1] https://is
I guess this marker is that the issue is either "blocker" or "critical" (+ the
fix has to be in Jenkins for at least cca 2 weeks).
I'm asking because someone could forget to bump the issue to critical (default
is "major") or I can miss something (both happened in the past).
On Monday 22 Octob
11 matches
Mail list logo
