Hi Alex
Great the N works, and the I now at least builds.
Where was the ocl20 reference?
The I tests fail. What is different about the I and the N. Since N
passes and my local fetch passes, I'm inclined to think that the I
build is incorrectly specifying a JUnit 3 context/feature.
Ed
Alexander Igdalov wrote:
Ed,
In short, I don't know why I am
getting the message about ocl20a. I am now investigating this.
As regards the tests, I suppose
they failed because the dependencies on the platform were those of M3.
I have just updated them.
I will now run another N build
so that we get clean results.
Regards,
- Alex.
Hi Alex
The CVS-triggered job on https://build.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-mdt-ocl-3.0/72/
built successsfully but silently failed to run the tests, so failed.
Your jobs on https://build.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-mdt-ocl-3.0-integration/
keep failing becuase you haven't removed the reference to
org.eclipse.ocl20a.all. Is it in the job configuration that I can't see?
Could the silent test failures be caused by a failure to import JUnit4
into the build?
A fresh local install of Platform, EMF, UML2 M4, with OCL from CVS runs
fine, so the [4.5.0 5.0.0) tests range would seem ok (On Windows with
Sun Java 5).
Ed
Ed Willink wrote:
Hi
Alex
Ready to go.
With the common tests plugin now, the version is exported to the
others, so if the test fails. It's just the one manifest that needs
changing.
Ed
On 16/12/2009 07:39, Alexander Igdalov wrote:
Hi Ed,
I see. Please ping me when you
are finished.
Regards,
- Alex.
Hi Alex
I've just checked our JUnit ranges. They're going to fail. See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=297925.
I'll commit a change in about 10 minutes that supports [4.5.0 5.0.0)
preserving Galileo functionality. If this fails then we need to go to
[4.7.0).
Regards
Ed
On 16/12/2009 07:30, Alexander Igdalov wrote:
Hi All,
I am very sorry for having
confused the dates. I am starting to build OCL 3.0.0 M4 right away.
Sorry for the inconvenience,
- Alex.
Alex,
Please respond.
Thanks,
Kenn
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [mdt.dev] Some reminders about Helios M4
To: MDT developers < mdt.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Team,
Are we going to publish an OCL 3.0.0 M4?
Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613
 Kenn Hussey ---2009/12/13 10:53:36
PM---Team, Please see the email below, in particular #2. If your
project is planning to participate in the Helios release train, you
Team,
Please see the email below, in particular #2. If
your project is planning to participate in the Helios release train,
you must declare this by updating the metadata for your project in the
Portal. Please see http://www.eclipse.org/helios/planning/EclipseSimultaneousRelease.php for the requirements that your project must meet in order to
be on the train.
Cheers,
Kenn
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Some reminders about Helios M4
To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
1. its next Friday, 12/18!
2. That's the deadline for expressing intent to participate in Helios,
which is formally done by marking the simultaneousrelease flag in
Eclipse Portal (there's a Helios field to edit to "1"). The list is
currently (understandably) short, so I'll keep my eye on it, and send
more nag notes if expected teams don't mark soon.
modeling.amalgam
modeling.emf.compare
modeling.emf.eef
modeling.m2t.acceleo
rt.jetty
rt.swordfish
stp.sca
technology.egit
technology.subversive
tools.ptp
webtools
3. I suggest we not "announce" our individual Project milestones until
the Helios M4 date, 12/18. Of course, we need to announce on mailing
lists, etc., for our committers and adopters ... I just mean the
general news items, forums, and similar, targeted to general end-users
asking for early testing. That is what we have to do for the final
release, and I suggest we get in the habit of working "simultaneously"
now, even during milestones. Not a huge problem, but I do recall some
issue in the past where there were complaints or questions, because
someone tried to update part of their environment, but couldn't, since
some other part had not release an M4 version yet. Ends up being
frustrating and making us appear unorganized. (And we all know that's
not true :)
Thanks,
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
mdt.dev mailing list
mdt.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt.dev
_______________________________________________
mdt.dev mailing list
mdt.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt.dev
_______________________________________________
mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.716 / Virus Database: 270.14.108/2566 - Release Date: 12/15/09 07:52:00
_______________________________________________
mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
_______________________________________________
mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
|
