Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-40065-apmail-harmony-dev-archive=harmony.apache.org@harmony.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 97412 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2010 14:42:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2010 14:42:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 62490 invoked by uid 500); 15 Dec 2010 14:42:11 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org
Received: (qmail 62203 invoked by uid 500); 15 Dec 2010 14:42:09 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@harmony.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@harmony.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@harmony.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.harmony.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org
Received: (qmail 62194 invoked by uid 99); 15 Dec 2010 14:42:08 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:42:08 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of t.p.ellison@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.42 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.161.42] (HELO mail-fx0-f42.google.com) (209.85.161.42)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:41:59 +0000
Received: by fxm11 with SMTP id 11so2219182fxm.1
        for <dev@harmony.apache.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:41:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from
         :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to
         :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=q+pBMN5YO56GpieYKsQkwdtfBSg3mBli86E8pL4T9iU=;
        b=A59jKqUt5xB0mCRqwMwDHU44nDGQ38s4MianCPU7j9bkhrdTo068IGxyYUmRyFAs5d
         cVdzpe0zegBxbX0ssWIp+d6zGe0R2ox16JUttuZEzCf99VTgnjw2zB1hbcTYHglf68va
         Cat+gruHA6/pBinuMEMgMZ8kAzRj0yQAUMgBE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Q9xIgYNNTVPNWePMO59CwW+tmagJZpsuEMCDBHthuF/7s8VN7/duY1a5YXDWNHmj10
         PUFq3q9TcxBE3zr7y1Z4tsHJXawn3v4PsdvEnyctR+yGkhmrdSYrc1Y1c3tEdrAJ4zAT
         NzeI8uRwW+ytCKmtb7XFBXYpP2ifoprcaBVxg=
Received: by 10.223.72.202 with SMTP id n10mr7381682faj.74.1292424099369;
        Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:41:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [9.20.183.174] (gbibp9ph1--blueice3n2.emea.ibm.com
 [195.212.29.84])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e6sm466192fav.32.2010.12.15.06.41.38
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:41:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D08D3A1.5020106@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:41:37 +0000
From: Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [build] Failure in
 org.apache.harmony.pack200.tests.PackingOptionsTest.testModificationTime
 - commit fix or not?
References: <AANLkTikE_wxP95tXYVWSdygVdpu-PCx=tj12y=daU5yO@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikE_wxP95tXYVWSdygVdpu-PCx=tj12y=daU5yO@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On 15/Dec/2010 14:33, Sian January wrote:
> I think the failure that the Hudson build and Ray are seeing in
> pack200 is a regression introduced in r996801 (i.e. since the last
> milestone).  I can't reproduce it due to being in the UK where the
> timezone offset is 0, but the fix should be as follows:
> 
<snip>
> 
> Any support to commit before M16 or should we leave it until afterwards?

Since it is a regression introduced since our last milestone, I'm +1 for
fixing it now.

Regards,
Tim