I have run the framework on trunk throught the OSGi R5 CT: org.osgi.test.cases.framework org.osgi.test.cases.framework.launch The about suites are all passing.
I did run into some issues around the security tests: org.osgi.test.cases.framework.secure org.osgi.test.cases.framework.launch.secure I passed on the details to Karl, hopefully he can figure out what's going on there ... Cheers, David On 13 March 2014 08:04, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> wrote: > That would be fantastic, Karl! > > I think the issues around the locking are now resolved: FELIX-4190 is > resolved and I think we can close FELIX-3687 as well (correct David > J?). > I'll run trunk through the OSGi R5 CT today to double check that > everything is still passing there and will let you know when that's > done. > > Cheers, > > David > > On 11 March 2014 12:58, Karl Pauls <[email protected]> wrote: >> If you want me to I can cut the release if you let me know when it is >> ready... >> >> regards, >> >> Karl >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:50 AM, David Bosschaert < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I would really like to start getting this release out, any comments on >>> Guillaume's updated patch? >>> If nobody has any comments I can just apply it and get the release >>> process rolling. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> David >>> >>> On 24 February 2014 14:07, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed. >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>: >>> > >>> >> Do you have a patch that you could attach to FELIX-3687 that I could >>> look >>> >> at ? >>> >> Again, I have no problems reverting my patch, but I'd like FELIX-3687 / >>> >> FELIX-4190 to be fixed in some way or another, preferably the best one >>> ... >>> >> >>> >> Cheers, >>> >> Guillaume >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2014-02-23 19:25 GMT+01:00 David Jencks <[email protected]>: >>> >> >>> >> As I've said before, I sort of need some advice on how to proceed to fix >>> >>> the deadlock. I'm slightly in favor of just rolling back Guillaume's >>> fix >>> >>> since it is definitely not spec compliant. Whether the deadlock is >>> more >>> >>> spec compliant is certainly debatable. >>> >>> >>> >>> david jencks >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 23, 2014, at 8:14 AM, David Bosschaert < >>> [email protected]> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> > Hi all, >>> >>> > >>> >>> > It's been a while since this thread was started. I see that there is >>> a >>> >>> > desire to improve on the locking, but nothing has happened in that >>> >>> > area over the past month. >>> >>> > I was thinking to start putting together a release early March, since >>> >>> > it will be nice to have R5 core support in a release. If we can get >>> >>> > the locking code improved before that then great, but was thinking >>> >>> > that if nothing has happened there we should postpone >>> >>> > FELIX-3687/FELIX-4190 to a later release? >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Thought anyone? >>> >>> > Cheers, >>> >>> > >>> >>> > David >>> >>> > >>> >>> > On 30 January 2014 08:53, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one >>> ;-) >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks <[email protected]> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> I hope that someone cleans up the mess around >>> >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3687 >>> >>> >>> and >>> >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4190 >>> >>> >>> before a release candidate. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> In the first issue I proposed a patch, Richard pointed out a >>> problem, >>> >>> and >>> >>> >>> I suggested a possible solution and haven't gotten any comments. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> In the 2nd issue Guillaume committed a fix that is invalid and >>> AFAIK >>> >>> it >>> >>> >>> has not been corrected. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> >>> david jencks >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 17, 2014, at 8:40 AM, David Bosschaert < >>> >>> [email protected]> >>> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> +1 for a new framework release, it would be great to have full R5 >>> >>> >>> support, >>> >>> >>>>> but if that is not supposed to happen soon >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> Full disclosure: >>> >>> >>>> I tried my hand on those resolver related open issues, but had the >>> >>> >>>> feeling that I didn't understand the Felix code well enough for >>> it. >>> >>> >>>> The resolver is a pretty complex beast, especially since it's >>> >>> >>>> recursive/re-entrant and I found that fixing one little issue >>> would >>> >>> >>>> cause tons of other things to fall over elsewhere ;) In the end I >>> >>> >>>> often came up with a patchwork of fixes for one resolver CT test >>> >>> >>>> failure where I had the feeling that it could be done more >>> elegantly. >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> so in the end I abandoned my attempts here... I think those >>> remaining >>> >>> >>>> resolver issues are for someone who really knows the felix >>> resolver >>> >>> >>>> code inside out :) >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karl Pauls >> [email protected] >> http://twitter.com/karlpauls >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlpauls >> https://profiles.google.com/karlpauls
