Code Review Request (7161503 subcase) 7142596: RMI JPRT tests are failing

Darryl Mocek darryl.mocek at
Tue Jul 10 21:17:07 UTC 2012

I think pushing what we have now and doing the cleanup after to get the 
RMI test changes in is the best approach.


On 07/10/2012 01:52 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> On 7/9/12 11:56 PM, Olivier Lagneau wrote:
>> Le 10/07/2012 08:49, Olivier Lagneau a écrit :
>>> Now in the 7161503 SetChilEnv case:
>>> I think we should just revert to the existing code regarding the
>>> DebugExecWatcher and related exception cleanup fix.
>>> We must then accept to keep this exception raised each time 
>>> runwith() is
>>> called, since this is the current state of the code.
>>> We should also then include in bug description a note stating the 
>>> problem and
>>> how we can fix it.
>>> Such a fix would then be part of recent 7168267.
> Hi Olivier,
> Thanks for taking time from your vacation to answer this.
> I'm sure I don't have all the background on this (and I don't really 
> need to know everything) but from what I recall from talking to 
> Darryl, 7142596 introduced a test failure that would have to go onto 
> the problem list; and then 7161503 would fix the failure and then 
> remove it from the problem list.
> Instead of fixing these separately we (at least Darryl and I) thought 
> it would be best to merge them together.
> Now, I had pointed out some issues with the changes to the SetChildEnv 
> test. My main concern is that we don't push the changes as-is and then 
> declare things to be done. If there's further discussion, design, or 
> cleanup to be done, great, we can push the current changes and 
> continue working on a followup changeset. If there's a bugid to track 
> this (probably 7161503) so much the better.
> If you and Darryl agree to proceed differently, though, I'm fine with 
> that too.
> s'marks

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list