Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=270144&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 23:31:38 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 23:33:22 -0800
Total time: 1m 44s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=270109&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 22:07:09 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 22:09:45 -0800
Total time: 2m 36s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Bui
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=270108&projectId=116
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous Build: No previous build.
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 22:02:22 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 22:05:06 -0800
Total time: 2m 44s
Build Trigge
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=270059&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 20:49:32 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 20:51:26 -0800
Total time: 1m 54s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Bui
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=270013&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 19:25:33 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 19:26:57 -0800
Total time: 1m 24s
Build Trigger: Schedule
I wouldn't bother.
LANG-525 is a reminder for anyone releasing a 2.x to go ahead and
identify which issues in 3.0 needed to be backported.
Hen
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:23 AM, sebb wrote:
> LANG-581 was raised against 2.4, but applies to Lang3 as well, which I
> have fixed.
>
> Is there going t
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269952&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 18:10:06 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 18:12:39 -0800
Total time: 2m 33s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269864&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 14:31:28 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 14:32:57 -0800
Total time: 1m 29s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269850&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 13:54:56 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 13:56:38 -0800
Total time: 1m 41s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Bui
On 14/01/2010, sebb wrote:
> On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >> The method SharedPoolDataSource.getPooledConnectionAndInfo has the
> > >> following code:
> > >>
> > >> synchronized (userKeys) {
> > >> if (user
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269745&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 10:32:32 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 10:34:09 -0800
Total time: 1m 37s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Bui
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269694&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 08:49:20 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 08:51:17 -0800
Total time: 1m 56s
Build Trigger: Schedule
On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Phil Steitz wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> >> The method SharedPoolDataSource.getPooledConnectionAndInfo has the
> >> following code:
> >>
> >> synchronized (userKeys) {
> >> if (userKeys.containsKey(username)) {
> >>
Oops, thanks fixed.
On 14/01/2010, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> EndEnd ? ;-)
>
> --- Weitergeleitete Nachricht (Anfang)
>
> [snip]
>
> + * StringUtils.removeEndEndIgnoreCase(null, *) = null
> + * StringUtils.removeEndEndIgnoreCase("", *)= ""
> + * StringUtil
EndEnd ? ;-)
--- Weitergeleitete Nachricht (Anfang)
[snip]
+ * StringUtils.removeEndEndIgnoreCase(null, *) = null
+ * StringUtils.removeEndEndIgnoreCase("", *)= ""
+ * StringUtils.removeEndEndIgnoreCase(*, null) = *
+ * StringUtils.removeEndEndIgnor
LANG-581 was raised against 2.4, but applies to Lang3 as well, which I
have fixed.
Is there going to be any further work on LANG 2.x?
If so, shall I fix the Javadoc in
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/lang/branches/LANG_POST_2_4
as well?
-
On 14/01/2010, contin...@vmbuild.apache.org wrote:
> Online report :
> http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269640&projectId=22
>
>
> Build statistics:
> State: Failed
> Previous State: Failed
>
> Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 06:05:51 -0800
> Finished at: Thu 14
On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/14/10, sebb wrote:
> >
> > On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > Unless I am reading the output of the latest failures wrong or we
> > > are picking up the wrong hashcode (should be innermost delegate),
> >
> > It's currently the connection retur
On 1/14/10, sebb wrote:
>
> On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > Unless I am reading the output of the latest failures wrong or we
> > are picking up the wrong hashcode (should be innermost delegate),
>
> It's currently the connection returned by getConnection().
> I'll fix that.
Should actua
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269640&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 06:05:51 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 06:07:58 -0800
Total time: 2m 7s
Build Trigger: Schedule
On 14/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Unless I am reading the output of the latest failures wrong or we
> are picking up the wrong hashcode (should be innermost delegate),
It's currently the connection returned by getConnection().
I'll fix that.
> this is now looking like it could be a pool bug
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269603&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 04:41:21 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 04:42:46 -0800
Total time: 1m 25s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Unless I am reading the output of the latest failures wrong or we
are picking up the wrong hashcode (should be innermost delegate),
this is now looking like it could be a pool bug - allowing more than
maxActive distinct connections to be simultaneously active. Need to
look at this some more. It i
Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>> The method SharedPoolDataSource.getPooledConnectionAndInfo has the
>> following code:
>>
>> synchronized (userKeys) {
>> if (userKeys.containsKey(username)) {
>> userKeys.remove(username);
>> }
>>
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269558&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 03:04:57 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 03:06:36 -0800
Total time: 1m 39s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269524&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 01:44:16 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 01:45:46 -0800
Total time: 1m 29s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Bui
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=269480&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 00:06:47 -0800
Finished at: Thu 14 Jan 2010 00:08:40 -0800
Total time: 1m 52s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Bui
27 matches
Mail list logo
