apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Trawick" <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Votes] Apr candidates in /dev/dist/
Date Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:04:13 GMT
On Nov 19, 2007 3:47 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org> 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-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:
> > -------------------------
> > starting consumer.....
> > starting producer.....
> > Name-based shared memory test FAILED: [2] No such file or directory
> > Name-based shared memory test FAILED: [2] No such file or directory
>
> That's a bug in the test. Just ensure that the test subdirectory is in your PATH
> such that testshmconsumer and testshmcontributor can be executed.
>
> > Waiting for producer to exit.
> > Waiting for consumer to exit.
> > Destroying shared memory segment...OK
> > Named shared memory test passed!
> > -------------------------
> >
> > 1.2.12:
> > -------------------------
> > testshm             : FAILED 1 of 6
> > -------------------------
> >
> > However, there have been comments that this is supposed to be expected
> > and that there is no fix available at present. So, I guess +1 in that
> > case.
> >
> > apr-util-1.2.11 fails with:
> > -------------------------
> > testdate            : FAILED 1 of 2
> > -------------------------
> >
> > Also, testreslist hangs, just like for some other people.
> >
> > Given that Ruediger already committed patches for both of these, it
> > would probably be best to roll again.
>
> I haven't commited for testdate so far. I just wanted to hear some other opinions
> especially on the patches to apr_date_parse_rfc as I couldn't believe that these
> bugs have not been found in a function that has not been touched for such a long time.
> So please comment and I commit or adjust.

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.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=405896 (comment tweak)

Mime
View raw message