I'm fine with releasing now. I didn't like that the test results couldn't be repeated. Since it was the test itself we can move ahead.
Nathan On 8/20/08, 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. > >> 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. ;-) > > -Mark > > -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
