You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> on 2010/04/14 18:26:38 UTC

Status of 1.6.11

I've merged the latest swig-rb fixes to 1.6.x, rerun 'make check', as well
as all the binding tests, and everything looks good to me.  As I recall,
there were a few Windows failures in 1.6.10, so in my paranoia, I'd request
folks that encountered those to place rerun the tests and verify that they
have been fixed.  Assuming I don't get any reports of failures or error,
I'll role the 1.6.11 tarballs tomorrow morning sometime (CDT).

Cheers,
-Hyrum

Re: Status of 1.6.11

Posted by Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>.

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> I've merged the latest swig-rb fixes to 1.6.x, rerun 'make check', as well
> as all the binding tests, and everything looks good to me.  As I recall,
> there were a few Windows failures in 1.6.10, so in my paranoia, I'd request
> folks that encountered those to place rerun the tests and verify that they
> have been fixed.  Assuming I don't get any reports of failures or error,
> I'll role the 1.6.11 tarballs tomorrow morning sometime (CDT).
>
> Cheers,
> -Hyrum

Hyrum,

I just finished running,

  [fsfs] x [ra_serf]
  [bdb] x [ra_local]
  JavaHL binding tests
  Ruby binding tests

with 1.6.x@934098 on Windows, and everything passes.

Paul