On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2010-08-27, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
>> It'd be great if you or anyone else with access to vmgump could try a
>> 'mvn test' on a fresh scxml trunk checkout and see if we get the same
>> 2 failures.
>
> No, that works just fine.
>
Good to
On 2010-08-27, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> It'd be great if you or anyone else with access to vmgump could try a
> 'mvn test' on a fresh scxml trunk checkout and see if we get the same
> 2 failures.
No, that works just fine.
> Since this was never passing in a gump run, I'd like to get that
> baselin
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2010-08-17, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
>> Yes, thanks, that will help when I try to debug. So the trick seems to
>> be to use the zone URLs and not the ones in the nag (perhaps until
>> said memory issues are resolved).
>
> In general, vmgum
On 2010-08-17, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2010-08-17, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2010-08-16, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> For the two scxml test failures, there is no such usage
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2010-08-17, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>> On 2010-08-16, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
For the two scxml test failures, there is no such usage. I think I'll
let things settle som
On 2010-08-17, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2010-08-16, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>>> For the two scxml test failures, there is no such usage. I think I'll
>>> let things settle some before taking a look.
>> No, for scxml things are different.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2010-08-16, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
>> For the two scxml test failures, there is no such usage. I think I'll
>> let things settle some before taking a look.
>
> No, for scxml things are different. Until last week Gump didn't build
> scxml
On 2010-08-16, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> For the two scxml test failures, there is no such usage. I think I'll
> let things settle some before taking a look.
No, for scxml things are different. Until last week Gump didn't build
scxml (or Sanselan, or Proxy for that matter) and it failed right from
