Hi Stefan, I tested on the remote release/13.3.15 Branch. I'm pretty confident, that i did a pull before we started testing so the Commit should have been included and I also think to remember, that the displayed Commit on that Branch was a Fix. Nevertheless I can't verify the inclusion of the Commit with 100% guarantee.
Regards, Patrick Am 18.03.2013 18:01, schrieb Stefan Rossbach: > Hi Franz, > > I think you have to ask Patrick because the error occured on his side. > I just checked the current Head of the release branch. > > During the selection of the target project for the shared project > I cancelled the sharing and did NOT receive the warning from > the SarosSessionManager. > > BR, > Stefan > > Am 18.03.2013 17:52, schrieb Zieris, Franz: >> Dear developers, >> >> I'm a bit confused and will try to clear things up. >> >> Stefan asked whether a specific patch was part of the Saros version which >> was tested by Arsenij and Patrick. Relating to specific dates does not help >> much, because Git works in a decentralized way. >> >> To fix some misconceptions you might have: >> >> * Strictly speaking, there are no "creation dates" for Git branches. >> They're just labels sticking to specific commits in a directed graph. What >> Arsenij probably meant was the commit date of the first commit on branch >> "release/13.3.15" which is not yet included in the master branch, which >> would be 34c6004 "[BUILD] Opened release branch 13.3.15" (because >> technically, all older master branch commits are also part of the release >> branch). >> >> * Anyway, patch #636 was pushed to Gerrit (and finally submitted) onto >> branch "release/13.3.15", hence *after* the creation of the branch. >> >> * The submission of the corresponding commit (f860fe5) was on 12th March, >> 7:35 pm; if Arsenij tested the current release branch during the session >> which produced the log statements below (13th March, 3:33 pm -- not "last >> week") he *did* use this commit, and that's what Stefan was asking for. >> >> * But since every developer uses his own Git repository, containing its >> own branches, one can simply use an older version without noticing. >> >> So again, Arsenij: What was the HEAD revision as you ran the tests that >> created the statements below? Hopefully it's one of these -- otherwise you >> tested a dubious version: >> * 34c6004 [BUILD] Opened release branch 13.3.15 >> * f860fe5 [FIX] session and project negotiation processes were not removed >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Franz >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Arsenij Solovjev [mailto:xeper...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:34 AM >> To: Stefan Rossbach >> Cc: dpp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: Re: [DPP-Devel] Results from Testing release 13.3.15 >> >> The patch is from 12th of March. So it should have been included, as the >> release branch was created on 13th of March. >> A big portion of the patches were tested last week though. So it wasn't >> included at that time >> >> >> -------- >> 2013/3/15 Stefan Rossbach <srossb...@arcor.de> >> Hi Arsenij, >> >> can you confirm that the patch >> http://saros-build.imp.fu-berlin.de/gerrit/#/c/636/ was already included >> when you tested the release candidate ? >> >> DEBUG 2013-03-13 15:33:42,980 (CancelProjectSharingHandler.java:76) >> Inv[xe...@saros-con.imp.fu-berlin.de/Saros] : Received invitation cancel >> message >> DEBUG 2013-03-13 15:33:42,980 (CancelableProcess.java:165) process IPN >> [remote side: xe...@saros-con.imp.fu-berlin.de/Saros] was cancelled by the >> remote side, error: none >> DEBUG 2013-03-13 15:33:42,996 (CancelableProcess.java:333) process IPN >> [remote side: xe...@saros-con.imp.fu-berlin.de/Saros] was cancelled manually >> by the remote side >> DEBUG 2013-03-13 15:33:42,996 (CancelableProcess.java:276) executing >> cancellation for process IPN [remote side: >> xe...@saros-con.imp.fu-berlin.de/Saros] >> DEBUG 2013-03-13 15:33:42,996 (SarosSessionManager.java:288) terminating all >> running negotiation processes >> WARN 2013-03-13 15:33:53,043 (SarosSessionManager.java:291) there are still >> running negotiation processes >> >> This should not happen. >> >> BR, >> Stefan >> >> >> -------- >> Am 14.03.2013 23:31, schrieb Arsenij Solovjev: >> Dear Saros developers, >> >> >> Our Tests are completed. These tests included the latest session-6 >> refactoring and fix which is currently on review in Gerrit. >> We found no critical bugs while testing. The Testdocuments can be read here: >> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/05nhmmcw9ylgq6w/JAejBzv1TJ >> >> This includes Logfiles for the Session-6 Tests as well as the Testplan for >> Session-6 and the Complete Changelog-Test-Dokument. >> The only bug which we've uncovered, is that ContributionAnnotations are not >> refreshed. >> However this is not a regression and has always been the case, so we don't >> consider this >> a critical issue. >> Testplan legend: >> light green/dark green - passed >> yellow - hard to test, yet verified that testing not required >> orange/pink - untested >> >> Regards, >> Testteam >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar > _______________________________________________ > DPP-Devel mailing list > DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ DPP-Devel mailing list DPP-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dpp-devel
