Re: [aspectj-users] Re: Redistribution of aspectj 1.6.7.a as, 1.6.8?

[Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi William,

Yes, I'd sneak that change in too for a 1.6.8.  These two issues
(yours and that one) basically highlight 1.6.7 didn't get the testing
I'd have liked considering the amount of change that went in - but
that is partly understandable as not everyone can jump onto every dev
build to check their scenarios are still ok.  Usually there is a lot
of 'accidental' testing as users upgrade their AJDT and pickup the
latest dev builds of AspectJ, but a lot of the change in 1.6.7 was LTW
related and that doesn't get well exercised through AJDT.

Regarding the isAssignableFrom() issue, I'm glad I finally got to the
bottom of that.  It has been around for so long but as you say it is
tricky to trigger as it relies on the behaviour of GC .  Luckily I
have great users willing to try any old patch I create for them :)
Having that issue come in really gives me much more confidence in what
is now going to get called 1.6.8.

I remember when we were writing the Eclipse AspectJ book.  As we were
taking screenshots of the UI, we had to make serious changes to AJDT
on a regular basis so that the screenshots actually showed what we
wanted them to - this caused us to rapidly release about 6/7 versions
of AJDT over a couple of month period... fun times.  But I don't want
to start repeating that for AspectJ - I'm almost starting to get the
feeling the AspectJ 3 month release schedule we are on is too frequent
as I'm not sure people can keep up.  If anyone has any thoughts on
that, let me know.

Finally, as I mentioned previously, if anyone reading this can test
what is currently 1.6.7a,  I'd appreciate it !  (There is no dev build
with the isAssignableFrom fix in just yet, should be today)

cheers,
Andy

2010/1/7 William Louth (JINSPIRED.COM) <william.louth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:33:35 -0800
>>
>> From: Andy Clement<andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [aspectj-users] Redistribution of aspectj 1.6.7.a as
>>        1.6.8?
>>
>> Interesting.  We've had qualifiers previously, but not since the early
>> 1.5 days if i recall correctly so I guess that hasn't come up before.
>> I haven't actually put 1.6.7.a in a repo yet as I'm waiting on a few
>> more people to report back - it seems although I kept the code stable
>> for a few weeks before release and asked users to try it, they didn't
>> get around to it (I'm not blaming anyone, it is just unfortunate) and
>> now problems are being reported on the final release.  There is the
>> one fix I've made so far to create 1.6.7.a but Simone has perhaps seen
>> another issue and a user on the spring forums is describing an old
>> problem which seems to occur more frequently on 1.6.7 (I'm working on
>> it under https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=298908 ).
>> Depending on what happens with these, I may create a 1.6.8 release
>> anyway, rather than getting into b/c/d suffixes.  I'll decide what to
>> do in the next few days.
>>
>> Can I ask anyone who is able to, please try 1.6.7.a and raise any
>> issues you see.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>
> I assume Andy you want us to try out the latest development build which
> includes the fix isAssignableFrom which occurred previously when
> WeakReferences were used liberally and heap memory was low (which might
> explain why it is always hard to create a test case for).
>
> I would also like to see it named 1.6.8 though I understand why you would
> not like to jump so quickly after a release pushed out a week ago (except
> for me).
>
> Kind regards,
>
> William
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>