Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=267250&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Error
Started at: Fri 8 Jan 2010 06:29:25 -0800
Finished at: Fri 8 Jan 2010 06:29:34 -0800
Total time: 9s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=267362&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Error
Started at: Fri 8 Jan 2010 10:52:02 -0800
Finished at: Fri 8 Jan 2010 10:52:09 -0800
Total time: 7s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Build
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=267398&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Error
Started at: Sun 10 Jan 2010 07:29:15 -0800
Finished at: Sun 10 Jan 2010 07:29:24 -0800
Total time: 8s
Build Trigger: Forced
Build
>From the debugging added to some previously failed builds, I saw
loop = 2 for some threads. Threads should not be looping. Second
loop by a thread that succeeded the first time that throws will not
change success state - so it looks like a success -> not enough
failures.
Phil
pste...@apache.or
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=267471&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Ok
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sun 10 Jan 2010 10:53:50 -0800
Finished at: Sun 10 Jan 2010 10:55:38 -0800
Total time: 1m 47s
Build Trigger: Forced
Build
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=267522&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Error
Started at: Sun 10 Jan 2010 13:13:43 -0800
Finished at: Sun 10 Jan 2010 13:13:50 -0800
Total time: 6s
Build Trigger: Forced
Build
Thanks.
Looks like I did not complete the fixes properly when I added the
loopOnce parameter to PoolTest.
It was quite tricky following the Continuum build output, as the date
was 2 days behind, and the mail for the failed runs is not always
accurate - if the "Exit code" is 127, then most of the
sebb wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Looks like I did not complete the fixes properly when I added the
> loopOnce parameter to PoolTest.
>
> It was quite tricky following the Continuum build output, as the date
> was 2 days behind, and the mail for the failed runs is not always
> accurate - if the "Exit cod
On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Looks like I did not complete the fixes properly when I added the
> > loopOnce parameter to PoolTest.
> >
> > It was quite tricky following the Continuum build output, as the date
> > was 2 days behind, and the mail for the
sebb wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Looks like I did not complete the fixes properly when I added the
> loopOnce parameter to PoolTest.
I think I found (and fixed) another problem. See r897720.
>
> It was quite tricky following the Continuum build output, as the date
> was 2 days behind, and the mail fo
On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Looks like I did not complete the fixes properly when I added the
> > loopOnce parameter to PoolTest.
>
> I think I found (and fixed) another problem. See r897720.
The wait in question is purely to allow the threads to star
sebb wrote:
> On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Looks like I did not complete the fixes properly when I added the
>> > loopOnce parameter to PoolTest.
>>
>> I think I found (and fixed) another problem. See r897720.
>
> The wait in question is purely to
On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> sebb wrote:
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > Looks like I did not complete the fixes properly when I added the
> >> > loopOnce parameter to PoolTest.
> >>
> >> I think I found (and fixed) another p
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=267564&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Ok
Started at: Sun 10 Jan 2010 15:13:35 -0800
Finished at: Sun 10 Jan 2010 15:15:26 -0800
Total time: 1m 50s
Build Trigger: Forced
Build
It is starting to look like Continuum cannot handle mixed Maven and
Ant groups, so perhaps it would be worth experimenting with a
standalone group?
Or perhaps work out how to use Maven to build with Java 1.4/1.5 (which
would be useful anyway) ;-)
I've tried recreating the failures using Hudson, b
sebb wrote:
> On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> sebb wrote:
>> >> > Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Looks like I did not complete the fixes properly when I added the
>> >> > loopOnce parameter to PoolTest.
>> >>
>> >> I think I foun
sebb wrote:
> It is starting to look like Continuum cannot handle mixed Maven and
> Ant groups, so perhaps it would be worth experimenting with a
> standalone group?
That may be what we have to do. It doesn't make sense, since there
is a "build environment" object that should determine what happe
On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> sebb wrote:
> >> > On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> >> sebb wrote:
> >> >> > Thanks.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Looks like I did not complete the fixes properly when I added the
> >> >> >
sebb wrote:
> On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> sebb wrote:
>> >> > On 10/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> >> sebb wrote:
>> >> >> > Thanks.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Looks like I did not complete the fixes properly when I a
On 11/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > It is starting to look like Continuum cannot handle mixed Maven and
> > Ant groups, so perhaps it would be worth experimenting with a
> > standalone group?
>
>
> That may be what we have to do. It doesn't make sense, since there
> is a "buil
On 11/01/2010, sebb wrote:
> On 11/01/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> > > It is starting to look like Continuum cannot handle mixed Maven and
> > > Ant groups, so perhaps it would be worth experimenting with a
> > > standalone group?
> >
> >
> > That may be what we have to do
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=267625&projectId=22
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Sun 10 Jan 2010 18:15:28 -0800
Finished at: Sun 10 Jan 2010 18:18:03 -0800
Total time: 2m 35s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Without any further input (over a week), I say it's safe to divest.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Henri Yandell a écrit :
>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>> This is how I believe the commons.lang.math package can be eliminated.
>>> Based on the c
23 matches
Mail list logo