harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Deakin <oliver.dea...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [M10] Testing
Date Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:40:44 GMT
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> I changed most of the issues from 5M10 to Unknown, as they were issues
> that existed with M9 and either didn't show up until code freeze or
> didn't get looked at.
>
> We just need to get in the practice of leaving issues unknown until
> they're fixed and then mark the fix version.
>   

+1 on this, although if someone feels a bug is truly must-fix for a 
particular milestone then I think they should target it as such.

Regards,
Oliver

> I would like to see the NOTICE and README issues fixed or commented
> on. I think Tim was working on one of them.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Oliver Deakin
> <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Yep, you're totally correct - I'd missed those last issues. As you say, I
>> think HARMONY-6193 and HARMONY-6155 are must fix, but are not functional so
>> do not block testing.
>>
>> Does anyone think that any of the other issues in [1] are must-fix for M10?
>> My personal feeling is that they are not and can be moved to an M11 target,
>> but please speak up if you feel differently.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Oliver
>>
>> [1]
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=12310050&fixfor=12313869
>>
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>     
>>> I still see a bunch of JIRA issues flagged as to be fixed in M10.  I'm
>>> guessing these are mis-labeled except HARMONY-6193 and HARMONY-6155.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Oliver Deakin wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Let's consider repo revision r780017 as M10 - I've just run all the
>>>> classlib tests on Windows XP x86 and they have all passed successfully
>>>> for me, so no adverse effects from the recent changes.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any more test results for any other platforms? It would
>>>> be nice to have at least Linux x86 (and perhaps linux x86_64) if
>>>> possible...
>>>>
>>>> Im going to try and do some app testing as best I can this week - if
>>>> anyone gets any time to do this, please post your results here.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>> Sian January wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Tests are still looking good for me on Windows after Mark's commit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/5/29 Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Applied at r780017.  (Sorry I was a bit slow; I was too busy relaxing
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the sun.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Mark.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <4A1FBFFE.6030501@googlemail.com>, Oliver Deakin
writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Looks like the patch has 2 committers supporting - I'm also +1
to
>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>> the test crashes and if the patch for HARMONY-6132 does this
without
>>>>>>> affecting any of the other tests, then Im also +1 to the patch.
Please
>>>>>>> go ahead and commit it as soon as possible so we can begin final
>>>>>>> testing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alexey Varlamov wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> 2009/5/28, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>>>> [skipped]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> I also had two test crashes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  org.apache.harmony.luni.tests.java.net.SocketTest
>>>>>>>>>  org.apache.harmony.xnet.provider.jsse.SSLSocketImplTest
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which were both fixed by Ilya's patch in HARMONY-6132.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good to apply the patch from HARMONY-6132
>>>>>>>>> before M10.
>>>>>>>>> Does anyone else support/oppose this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>> The fix looks reasonable and the issue is important enough
to fix
>>>>>>>> it in M10
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Alexey
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>  Mark.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Oliver Deakin
>>>>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
with
>>>>>>> number 7415
>>>>>>> 98.
>>>>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>>>>>>> PO6 3AU
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>             
>>>>>           
>>>       
>> --
>> Oliver Deakin
>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
>> 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
>> PO6 3AU
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU


Mime
View raw message