On 2013-06-05, at 16:14, Goubier Thierry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 05/06/2013 16:04, Marcus Denker a écrit : >> >> On Jun 5, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Goubier Thierry <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Le 05/06/2013 15:56, Marcus Denker a écrit : >>>> >>>> On Jun 5, 2013, at 2:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>>> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-2.0-Tests/./Run=run%201,VM=vm,label=linux/247/ >>>>> >>>>> 3 regressions found. >>>>> FileSystem.Tests.Disk.FileHandleTest.testTruncate >>>>> >>>>> Refactoring.Tests.Changes.RBRefactoringChangeTests.testPerformChangeComment >>>>> Tests.Monticello.MCClassDefinitionTest.testLoadAndUnload >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hhmm… not good. >>>> >>>> Marcus >>>> >>>> >>> Hey, did something went wrong on integration? >> >> I guess so... > > If I add the correction of 10415/10411, I solve the last two. However, there > is nothing on the path of the testTruncate which explains an effect of > 10411/10415. Has the test machine been updated and now exhibits the same libc > behavior as an ubuntu 13.04 ? yes, we're running in barely-alive-emergency-mode, and the backup slave is running 13.04 :/
