ack,
If we are still clean - let's cut RC's Friday and restart the vote
Monday if all goes well
Carl.
Robert Godfrey wrote:
I don't think there's a high chance... I'll be running the unit tests
in a loop from now on... We'll set up some other tests as well... I
think cutting the RC's now is ok, but we won't be in a position to
vote until we're satisfied there's no more failures... probably the
start of next week...
-- Rob
On 03/10/2007, *Carl Trieloff* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
given that, should we go ahead and create the RC's + check them.
That will take a few days so we are ready to vote
if all goes well.
Unless you think there is a high chance of issues coming out of
the build.
Carl.
Robert Godfrey wrote:
We think we are good now, but we are now wanting to run tests
solidly for a few days to make sure there are no more issues.
If we can go through that without any failures then we'll be able
to vote for a release.
Rob
On 03/10/2007, *Carl Trieloff* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Are we then ready to create a new set of M2 RC?
Carl.
Rupert Smith wrote:
> I may have thought that to begin with, but then realized I
had searched for
> usages of Iterator.remove(), and not specifically
> IdentityHashMap.Iterator.remove().
>
> On 02/10/2007, Robert Greig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/2007, Rupert Smith < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>>> BTW The Qpid code does not call
IdentityHashMap.Iterator.remove(), which
>>>
>> is
>>
>>> the source of the problem. So it is probably ok, even so,
a HashMap
>>>
>> might be
>>
>>> safer.
>>>
>> Ah, I thought someone had told me that it was removing
items in an
>> iterator. Must have picked up the wrong end of the stick.
>>
>> RG
>>
>>
>
>
