Phil Steitz wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> The last release of Lang was in March 2008 and there have been quite a >> few bug fixes and enhancements since then. Many of the changes in the >> current trunk which are compatible have been backported to the Lang >> 2.x branch to create this release. >> >> [ ] +1 Yes go ahead an release based on RC1 >> [ ] -1 No, because... >> >> Lang 2.5 RC1 is available for review here: >> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/lang-2.5-rc1/ >> >> Maven artifacts are here: >> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/lang-2.5-rc1/maven/commons-lang/ >> >> Details of changes since 2.4 are in the release notes: >> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/lang-2.5-rc1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt >> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/lang-2.5-rc1/site/changes-report.html >> >> I have tested this with JDK 1.3 & 1.4 using ant and JDK 1.5 & 1.6 using >> maven2. >> (note JVMRandom tests failed for JDK 1.3 & 1.4 - but I re-ran a couple >> of times and both passed) >> >> >> The tag is here: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/lang/tags/LANG_2_5_RC1/ >> >> Site: >> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/lang-2.5-rc1/site/ >> (note some *relative* links are broken and the 2.5 directories are >> not yet created - these will be OK once the site is deployed) >> >> Clirr Report (compared to 2.4): >> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/lang-2.5-rc1/site/clirr-report.html >> >> RAT Report: >> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/lang-2.5-rc1/site/rat-report.html >> >> tia >> >> Niall >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > Sigs, hashes are good > Clirr is good > Tag matches src > Tested build on Apple JDKs 1.4.2_18, 1.5.0_19, 1.6.0_17 > Sun JDKs 1.4.2_19, 1.5.0_22, 1.6.0_17 (using Ant for 1.4 JDKs). > > I did see one RandomUtilsTest failure (Apple JDK 1.6). These tests > are failing at too high a frequency, which I am investigating; but I > do not see this as a showstopper, so > > +1 > > Phil >
I hate to do this; but I would like to change my vote to +0. The random data tests are failing at a high enough frequency to be annoying / alarming to users. I investigated the high incidence of test failures and found nothing wrong with what the tests are doing and nothing to indicate systematic bias in the data being generated; but the addition of 40+ chi-square tests in the test methods added in r907159 makes the probability of failure in a given run > 1/25. This is why there is a high incidence of test failures. I verified that failures appear to be evenly distributed (too many, too few even/edd, too many, too few above/below range midpoints) and that the chisquare statistics are being computed correctly, with the right critical values applied. If you do cut another RC, I would recommend one of the following: 1) Grab / copy and extend [math]'s RetryTestCase (will cut incidence of failure in half) 2) Disable the stochastic test cases for the release 3) Reduce sensitivity of the chi-square test (change to e.g., .0005 level of significance) 4) Reduce the number of tests My recommendation is 2) - leave in the source but comment out. The tests are valuable as they would fail regularly and miserably if there were systematic bias (as there used to be on odd/even); but without reducing significantly the number of tests or the sensitivity (or limiting to a single "successful" PRNG sequence), there is no way to leave them all in without generating an annoyingly high rate of random failures. Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
