On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:44:41PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
So, no regression.
However, if I build and test from a source tree in /tmp, like you,
testlfs fails for me even more verbosely than for you:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/apr-1.2.8/test$./testall -v testlfs
testlfs :
* Justin Erenkrantz
| I am unsure if they are regressions. But, as I mentioned in ()s about
testlfs,
| the test for lfs errors out with a message saying that I don't have 8GB free
on
| the device or that it was out of space. I was building and testing in /tmp
| which is RAM-backed - so I'm
On 11/29/2006 at 5:23 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William
A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.8
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 08:40:05AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
APR test failures on Solaris 10, but not enough for me to consider a
showstopper for 1.2.8. Details below. APR tests passed on Mac OS X.
And, APR-util tests passed on both.
Thanks for RMing! -- justin
Solaris 10/Intel,
On Nov 29, 2006, at 2:44 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
If we roll over to 1.2.9, I'd like to do it no later than
tomorrow evening.
As I said, I don't view these failures as anything that should
hold up 1.2.8.
Understood - but
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 05:04:41PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 08:40:05AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
APR test failures on Solaris 10, but not enough for me to consider a
showstopper for 1.2.8. Details below. APR tests passed on Mac OS X.
And, APR-util tests passed
So given there are room for improvement but most of these appear to be
situational and OS specific (heck - BSD 6.1 fails yet OS/X is golden? Odd)
I'm comfortable running with this. My own results later today, we look
good for blessing this on Friday.
Sander Temme wrote:
On Nov 30, 2006, at
On 11/30/06, Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, if I build and test from a source tree in /tmp, like you,
testlfs fails for me even more verbosely than for you:
FYI, that's what I got too, but I was just too lazy to paste it. =)
I'm not sure what's up with testsockets - could be
On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 11/30/06, Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, if I build and test from a source tree in /tmp, like you,
testlfs fails for me even more verbosely than for you:
FYI, that's what I got too, but I was just too lazy to paste it.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:11:52PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
My VMware thing has one interface with a statically assigned IPv4
address and a self-assigned link-local IPv6 address.
If it helps, my Solaris boxes all have IPv6 disabled. -- justin
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 07:12:46PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:11:52PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
My VMware thing has one interface with a statically assigned IPv4
address and a self-assigned link-local IPv6 address.
If it helps, my Solaris boxes all have
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.8
[ ] apr-util-1.2.8
[ ] apr-0.9.13
[ ] apr-util-0.9.13
Win .zip's will follow when I have a
On 11/29/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.8
[ ] apr-util-1.2.8
+1 for apr-1.2.8 and
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 06:23:08AM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
Thanks for RMing! +1 for apr-1.2.8 and apr-util-1.2.8 tarballs. Manual
inspection
Joe Orton skrev:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 06:23:08AM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
Thanks for RMing! +1 for apr-1.2.8 and apr-util-1.2.8 tarballs.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
APR test failures on Solaris 10, but not enough for me to consider a
showstopper for 1.2.8. Details below. APR tests passed on Mac OS X.
And, APR-util tests passed on both.
Thanks for RMing! -- justin
Solaris 10/Intel, Sun Studio 11:
testlfs :
On 11/29/2006 01:23 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.8
[ ] apr-util-1.2.8
[ ] apr-0.9.13
[
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 06:23 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.8
[ ] apr-util-1.2.8
[ ]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 29, 2006, at 4:23 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or
four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.8
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 01:56:43PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
APR test failures on Solaris 10, but not enough for me to consider a
showstopper for 1.2.8. Details below. APR tests passed on Mac OS X.
And, APR-util tests passed on both.
Thanks for
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
If we roll over to 1.2.9, I'd like to do it no later than tomorrow evening.
As I said, I don't view these failures as anything that should hold up 1.2.8.
Understood - but Solaris seems to be the biggest thorn in our side (and their
own - heh). In combination with the
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
If we roll over to 1.2.9, I'd like to do it no later than tomorrow evening.
As I said, I don't view these failures as anything that should hold up 1.2.8.
Understood - but Solaris seems to be the biggest thorn in our side (and their
own
22 matches
Mail list logo
