On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> 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.
Ugh, really, I tried that and it still failed, that's when I went crazy :-P
> I'll look more closely later tonight.
A 1000 thank yous! Let us know what you find, I'll be happy to review
any nominations you make to get this working.
Received on 2008-12-04 20:17:01 CET