harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vladimir Ivanov" <ivavladi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general][M2] Code frozen
Date Wed, 27 Jun 2007 03:29:42 GMT
I prefer to exclude this test (at least temporary) and store it in the
SVN with some comments about no access to the required site from the
tested machine.
 thanks, Vladimir

On 6/27/07, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/26/07, Vladimir Ivanov <ivavladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I look at classlib failures:
> >
> > org.apache.harmony.prefs.tests.java.util.prefs.AbstractPreferencesTest
> > - discussed in the other thread. This test requires direct connect to
> > the internet.
> >
>
> Hmm, ...  I'm in doubts. The question is to run tests against new
> snapshot should I exclude them locally too or commit the update for
> the exclude list to SVN repository (just for the record)?
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> > java.awt.geom.Arc2DTest - failed on snapshot but passed on current
> > revision (as -Dtest.jre.home=<my_build_of_drlvm>
> >
> >  thanks, Vladimir
> >
> > On 6/26/07, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/25/07, Ivan Popov wrote:
> > > > I see two failures of jdktools tests, which are not new ones.
> > > >
> > > > Test org.apache.harmony.jpda.tests.jdwp.VirtualMachine.HoldEventsTest
> > > > is known as intemittently failing on Windows (HARMONY-3508) and now it
> > > > fails on Linux too. It make sense to move this test to common exclude
> > > > list.
> > > >
> > > > Test mentioned as vmcarsh
> > > > (org.apache.harmony.jpda.tests.jdwp.ThreadReference.FramesTest) failed
> > > > due to exceeded timeout for tests run. You may want to increase
> > > > default timeout (900000 milliseconds), e.g, specifying
> > > > -Dhy.test.timeout=1200000 .
> > >
> > > Ivan, I've increased timeout to 30000000 but I still see test crash.
> > >
> > > -Stepan.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > Ivan
> > > >
> > > > On 6/25/07, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 6/25/07, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 2007/6/25, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > On 6/25/07, Mark Hindess wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 25 June 2007 at 13:59, "Stepan Mishura" <stepan.mishura@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 6/24/07, Mikhail Loenko <mloenko@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We have passed our code freeze date for
M2
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mikhail,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Just to be clear - M1 milestone published snapshots
include build for
> > > > > > > > > Windows x86, Linux (libstdc++ v5 and libstdc++
v6) x86 and Windows
> > > > > > > > > x86_64.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you think it would be possible to produce source
snapshots?  The
> > > > > > > > Apache release FAQ (at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
) says:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  The Apache Software Foundation produces open source
software. All
> > > > > > > >  releases are in the form of the source materials
needed to make
> > > > > > > >  changes to the software being released. In some cases,
binary/bytecode
> > > > > > > >  packages are also produced as a convenience to users
that might
> > > > > > > >  not have the appropriate tools to build a compiled
version of the
> > > > > > > >  source. In all such cases, the binary/bytecode package
must have
> > > > > > > >  the same version number as the source release and
may only add
> > > > > > > >  binary/bytecode files that are the result of compiling
that version of
> > > > > > > >  the source code release.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Currently binaries are our primary artifact.  I appreciated
that it may
> > > > > > > > be a little late to try to correct this for this release,
but I think it
> > > > > > > > is important that we try to correct this before we
get too comfortable
> > > > > > > > with the current release process.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd suggest to switch to using source snapshots right after
M2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It should now be possible to do:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  ant bundle_src
> > > > > > > >  mkdir /tmp/build
> > > > > > > >  tar -C /tmp/build -xzf target/apache-harmony-src-r550411-snapshot.tar.gz
> > > > > > > >  cd /tmp/build/harmony-src-550411
> > > > > > > >  ant -Dauto.fetch=true
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > which would seem to me to be more in-keeping with
the Apache release
> > > > > > > > guidelines.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On this subject, I'd like to permission to commit
a patch to correct the
> > > > > > > > top-level directory name in the source tar.gz/zip
files from:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  harmony-src-550411
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  apache-harmony-src-r550411
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm OK with it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > will it require rebuild of the release candidate?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is not required.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I've built and uploaded milestone candidates (r550333) for
> > > > > - Linux x86/x86_64 libstdc++ v5 (and v6 for x86 is in progress)
> > > > > - Windows x86/x86_64
> > > > >
> > > > > The snapshots are available from "snapshots v5" page[1] (or can be
> > > > > taken from dir [2])
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] http://harmony.apache.org/snapshots_v5.html
> > > > > [2] http://people.apache.org/builds/harmony/snapshots/r550333/
> > > > >
> > > > > -Stepan.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Mikhail
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Stepan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The format of the archive names changed over time
and these have become
> > > > > > > > inconsistent.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >  Mark.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I assume that we still aimed to x86 architecture
and I need to build
> > > > > > > > > milestone candidates for:
> > > > > > > > > - Windows x86
> > > > > > > > > - Linux x86. BWT, again for both libstdc++ versions?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And what about x86_64?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I said M1 includes Windows x86_64. Should
we publish them to let
> > > > > > > > > the community test them to see how good they
are?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Stepan.
>

Mime
View raw message