On 20/08/2008, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Nathan Beyer" writes: > > > > nathan:~$ update-alternatives --display javap > > javap - status is auto. > > link currently points to /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/bin/javap > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/bin/javap - priority 63 > > slave javap.1.gz: /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/man/man1/javap.1.gz > > Current `best' version is /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/bin/javap. > > Hopefully Sian will provide a quick fix for this common case. In the > meantime, what is you position on M7? Do you think M7 needs a fix for > this issue? Are there other must-fix issues that you consider blockers? > > I would not be unhappy to release r681495 as M7 since these are test > issues rather than code issues and we have released with failures due > to bad tests before. So I vote +1 on this thread. > > Of course, if Sian can provide a prompt fix for this test issue then she > has my +1 to commit it and we can start another vote. >
Thanks Mark - I've checked in a fix for the two tests at r687281. > > Perhaps using 'javap' isn't the most stable/portable approach. Can we > > use one of the bytecode libraries we have already and run the class > > files through that? > > I'm sure Sian is considering other options for M8. ;-) > Yes - I think I said this yesterday too. I personally don't think it's worth holding up M7 for since it's a test issue rather than a code issue, but I will do it if other people think it's important for M7. > -Mark > > -- 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
