8000 fix SI-9881 test failure by SethTisue · Pull Request #6777 · scala/scala · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

fix SI-9881 test failure #6777

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 12, 2018
Merged

fix SI-9881 test failure #6777

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 12, 2018

Conversation

SethTisue
Copy link
Member
@SethTisue SethTisue commented Jun 11, 2018

some whitespace in the check file got misplaced when the test
was backported to 2.11

sequel to #6195

some whitespace in the check file got misplaced when the test
was backported to 2.11
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author
SethTisue commented Jun 11, 2018

@SethTisue SethTisue self-assigned this Jun 11, 2018
@SethTisue SethTisue added this to the 2.11.13 milestone Jun 11, 2018
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author

our Jenkins infra doesn't do 2.11.x PR validation anymore, but I tested this locally on MacOS with test/partest test/files/run/t9880-9881.scala

# starting 1 test in run
ok 1 - run/t9880-9881.scala                    

ah, but actually the test fails locally without the whitespace change, so this was never a Windows-specific problem!

@SethTisue SethTisue changed the title fix Windows-only test failure fix SI-9881 test failure Jun 11, 2018
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author

/nothingtoseehere

@SethTisue SethTisue merged commit d209ff4 into scala:2.11.x Jun 12, 2018
@SethTisue SethTisue deleted the windows-9881 branch June 12, 2018 01:47
@lrytz
Copy link
Member
lrytz commented Jun 12, 2018

This change is [nomerge-to-2.12.x], is that right?

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member Author
SethTisue commented Jun 12, 2018

hmm, depends on whether "nomerge" means "not necessary to merge" or "potentially tricky and/or harmful to merge", I guess. this will merge forward automatically and harmlessly, I think, since 2.12.x already has the change, so I figured it wasn't necessary to mark it nomerge, but maybe I'm not clear on the policy (or maybe there is no clear policy on this).

@lrytz
Copy link
Member
lrytz commented Jun 12, 2018

ah, right it doesn't matter if it merges cleanly. i think [nomerge] should be there for changes that "should not" be merged. for changes that "can but don't need to", either way is fine.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants
0