On 08.06.2015 15:37, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> I didn't think that any test suite failure should be called as release
> blocker and after thinking more I agree that this particular failure
> also should not be considered as blocker. Even it breaks my release
> testing scripts, since failure in one confi
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 08.06.2015 14:53, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On 8 June 2015 at 14:37, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 08.06.2015 13:33, i...@apache.org wrote:
Author: ivan
Date: Mon Jun 8 11:33:42 2015
New Revision: 1684161
URL: http://svn.apache.
On 08.06.2015 14:53, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 8 June 2015 at 14:37, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 08.06.2015 13:33, i...@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: ivan
>>> Date: Mon Jun 8 11:33:42 2015
>>> New Revision: 1684161
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1684161
>>> Log:
>>> * STATUS: Nominate r1684034 a
On 8 June 2015 at 14:37, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 08.06.2015 13:33, i...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: ivan
>> Date: Mon Jun 8 11:33:42 2015
>> New Revision: 1684161
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1684161
>> Log:
>> * STATUS: Nominate r1684034 as release blocker.
>
>
> Ivan, a minor bug in the
On 08.06.2015 13:33, i...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: ivan
> Date: Mon Jun 8 11:33:42 2015
> New Revision: 1684161
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1684161
> Log:
> * STATUS: Nominate r1684034 as release blocker.
Ivan, a minor bug in the test suite isn't a release blocker by any
stretch of imagin
5 matches
Mail list logo