You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jclouds.apache.org by Andrew Gaul <no...@github.com> on 2013/10/08 19:45:20 UTC

[jclouds] Skip failing testCreateBlobWithExpiry on Atmos (#171)

You can merge this Pull Request by running:

  git pull https://github.com/maginatics/jclouds atmos-disable-expiry-test

Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:

  https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/171

-- Commit Summary --

  * Skip failing testCreateBlobWithExpiry on Atmos

-- File Changes --

    M apis/atmos/src/test/java/org/jclouds/atmos/blobstore/integration/AtmosIntegrationLiveTest.java (6)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/171.patch
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/171.diff

Re: [jclouds] Skip failing testCreateBlobWithExpiry on Atmos (#171)

Posted by Andrew Gaul <no...@github.com>.
Pushed to master and 1.6.x.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/171#issuecomment-25916765

Re: [jclouds] Skip failing testCreateBlobWithExpiry on Atmos (#171)

Posted by Andrew Gaul <no...@github.com>.
Closed #171.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/171

Re: [jclouds] Skip failing testCreateBlobWithExpiry on Atmos (#171)

Posted by CloudBees pull request builder plugin <no...@github.com>.
[jclouds-pull-requests #289](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/289/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/171#issuecomment-25913944

Re: [jclouds] Skip failing testCreateBlobWithExpiry on Atmos (#171)

Posted by CloudBees pull request builder plugin <no...@github.com>.
[jclouds-java-7-pull-requests #751](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-java-7-pull-requests/751/) SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/171#issuecomment-25913968