Paul Burba wrote on Wed, 3 Dec 2008 at 18:29 -0500:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> >> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> >>> Your friendly neighborhood release manager here. I've noticed a bunch of items
> >>> piling up in STATUS for 1.5.5, a couple of which are user-requested items. In
> >>> order to not conflict with a potential 1.6.x branch and RC release, I'd like to
> >>> roll 1.5.5 sometime soon, perhaps this week on Wednesday or Thursday. That's
> >>> pending review and merge of existing items in STATUS, of course.
> >>> Thoughts?
> >> I should have also noted that merge_tests.py 89 is currently failing on 1.5.x,
> >> and rolling 1.5.5 before it is fixed would be an exercise in futility.
> This is a complete mess. merge_tests.py 89 was added r34050, which
> was merged to 1.5.x along with r34051 and r34053 in r34421. But this
> test relies on some changes made to the test suite in r33974, but that
> change relies upon other changes, maybe r33775, r33777, r33782,
> r33786, r33788, and/or who knows what? This is turning into a bit of
Thanks for digging these up. After merging the actions.py part of r33974,
the test at least runs, but fails on the directory case (which was added
in r34053) due to missing UUID in the 'info' output (the file case
passes). After I also merged r33775, r33782, r33786, and r33788, the
whole test passed.
I'll look more closely later tonight.
> a wild goose chase, so I want to ask the three devs who nominated and
> approved the r34050 group:
> 1) Did any of you check to see if this test actually passed on 1.5.x
> when voting? And yes, this is a rhetorical question :-P
> 2) Do you have any clue as to what else is needed to make it work?
> > Due to the failing test, and the lack of voting on the items in STATUS, I'm
> > postponing 1.5.5 until next week.
Received on 2008-12-04 16:08:19 CET