I do not know if I publish it somewhere but when I try to make UserManager I added reset on the class side to avoid such code. Stef On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:57, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
Yes, I just tested:
UserManager instVarNamed: 'default' put: nil. UserManager initialize.
fixes the release tests.
I have to go to bed though ;-)
Thx!
Sven
On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:54, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the fix https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?12711 might need to be applied again
Ben
On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:33, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:18, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
OK, I will try and trust you and Sean.
Well, it is in 30 726, but there are 2 regressions found:
ReleaseTests.ReleaseTest.testObsoleteClasses ReleaseTests.ReleaseTest.testUnknownProcesses
on all 3 platforms, these might be transient, but with all the renaming something could have gone wrong....
On 28 Jan 2014, at 00:13, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:08, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
Are the compatible ? Does one have to come before the other ? Are they both needed ?
I think we should drop
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12717/ReactiveVariable-NewValueHolder
and integrate
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/12684/NewValueHolder-Enhancements
For at least two reasons: - I added hooks for Spec to continue working with the slice I proposed (otherwise no more Spec fix until the release) - I do not have to review it :P
Ok maybe the second point is not that relevant LOL Just that I am sure that the fix I proposed works well with Spec. And I an pretty sure the other will break it :)
I was not aware of another case related to this. It is not flagged Spec nor my name, so there is no way for me to guess it exists.
Ben