[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [wtp-dev] Status on M2 candidate build (Rebuild request...)
|
When does the rebuild start?
--
Gorkem Ercan
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:29:21 -0800, Der Ping Chou <dpchou@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Rdb also checked in some changes on the plugin.xml file.
>
> Der-Ping Chou
> Development Manager - Data Tools
> IBM Software Group
> tel : 1-425-949-1059 (T/L: 349-4432)
>
>
>
>
> Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 12/13/2004 06:52 PM
>
> Please respond to
> wtp-dev
>
>
> To wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> cc
>
> Subject Re: [wtp-dev] Status on M2 candidate build (Rebuild request...)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are one of those teams requesting an additional build tonight.
> (Integration build please!)
>
> We dropped a few fixes regarding server targeting/enablement.
>
> Thanks - Chuck
>
> Rational J2EE Tooling Team Lead
> IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
> Email: cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)
>
>
>
> David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 12/13/2004 06:01 PM
>
>
> Please respond to
> wtp-dev
>
>
>
> To wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> cc
>
> Subject [wtp-dev] Status on M2 candidate build
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As requested ...
>
> From a narrow source editing point of view, I can declare a "go" for
> further testing (using latest I-build) .... but,
>
> from my particular vantage point, I happen to know some teams will be
> releasing some fixes, and requesting
> a rebuild (probably not until around 10 PM Eastern time, tonight). So we'll
> wait to do full testing until that new build
> is ready.
>
> I never could get "run on server" to work (using Tomcat 5.0),
> though others seem to be able to ... still unclear if that's my system, or
> what.
> (but hard to test breakpoints, without it).
>
> We'll be making a few updates to test plan this evening, as well.
>
> Our Unit test failures are still being investigated, but relatively sure
> most are due to
> poor tests ... and shouldn't effect testing (with the possible exception
> that we may not
> handle encoding errors correct, e.g. as malformed input ... hardly a
> hold-up).
>
>
