On 1/13/15 2:33 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 13 January 2015 at 21:26, Thomas Neidhart
> wrote:
>> On 01/13/2015 09:01 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/12/15 3:21 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/12/2015 11:17 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/12/15 2:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> On 01/12/201
Hi.
[...]
Everytime I added more debug output to FastMath.exp(), the tests
succeeded.
Did you try using Math.exp or StrictMath.exp in place of FastMath.exp?
I also setup a jenkins instance with the same maven / jdk version to
build commons-math, but could never reproduce an error so far.
On 13 January 2015 at 21:26, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/13/2015 09:01 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/12/15 3:21 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2015 11:17 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/12/15 2:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 10:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>
On 01/13/2015 09:01 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/12/15 3:21 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> On 01/12/2015 11:17 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/12/15 2:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/12/2015 10:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 08:09 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/12/15
On 1/12/15 3:21 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 11:17 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/12/15 2:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2015 10:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/12/2015 08:09 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/12/15 11:37 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 January 2015 a
jacoco is not the cause as the tests still fail when it is disabled.
Thomas
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> I did several tests by adding additional console output.
> The build was always running on H11 and sometimes it was working, while in
> other cases not.
>
> Ins
I did several tests by adding additional console output.
The build was always running on H11 and sometimes it was working, while in
other cases not.
Inspecting the byte code did not show anything unusual, it looks correct.
Maybe it is related to jacoco, as it adds a javaagent which manipulates
byt
On 13 January 2015 at 01:12, sebb wrote:
> On 13 January 2015 at 00:53, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/12/15 5:44 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 12 January 2015 at 22:21, Thomas Neidhart
>>> wrote:
On 01/12/2015 11:17 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/12/15 2:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> On 01
On 13 January 2015 at 00:53, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/12/15 5:44 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 January 2015 at 22:21, Thomas Neidhart
>> wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2015 11:17 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/12/15 2:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 10:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> O
On 1/12/15 5:44 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 January 2015 at 22:21, Thomas Neidhart
> wrote:
>> On 01/12/2015 11:17 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/12/15 2:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/12/2015 10:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 08:09 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/12/
On 12 January 2015 at 22:21, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 11:17 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/12/15 2:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2015 10:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/12/2015 08:09 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/12/15 11:37 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 Janu
On 01/12/2015 11:17 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/12/15 2:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> On 01/12/2015 10:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2015 08:09 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/12/15 11:37 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 January 2015 at 18:11, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/12/15 10:
On 1/12/15 2:30 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 10:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> On 01/12/2015 08:09 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/12/15 11:37 AM, sebb wrote:
On 12 January 2015 at 18:11, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/12/15 10:50 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 11 January 2015 at 22
On 01/12/2015 10:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 08:09 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/12/15 11:37 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 12 January 2015 at 18:11, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/12/15 10:50 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 January 2015 at 22:10, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/11/15 11:19 A
On 01/12/2015 08:09 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/12/15 11:37 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 January 2015 at 18:11, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/12/15 10:50 AM, sebb wrote:
On 11 January 2015 at 22:10, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/11/15 11:19 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/10/15 10:49 PM, Phil
On 1/12/15 11:37 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 January 2015 at 18:11, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/12/15 10:50 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 11 January 2015 at 22:10, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/11/15 11:19 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/10/15 10:49 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/9/15 6:09 PM, sebb wrot
On 12 January 2015 at 18:11, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/12/15 10:50 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 11 January 2015 at 22:10, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/11/15 11:19 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/10/15 10:49 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/9/15 6:09 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 10 January 2015 at 01:01, P
On 1/12/15 10:50 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 January 2015 at 22:10, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/11/15 11:19 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/10/15 10:49 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/9/15 6:09 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 January 2015 at 01:01, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/9/15 5:32 PM, sebb wrote:
On 11 January 2015 at 22:10, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/11/15 11:19 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/10/15 10:49 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/9/15 6:09 PM, sebb wrote:
On 10 January 2015 at 01:01, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/9/15 5:32 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 9 January 2015 at 23:48, sebb
On 11 January 2015 at 18:19, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/10/15 10:49 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/9/15 6:09 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 10 January 2015 at 01:01, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/9/15 5:32 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 9 January 2015 at 23:48, sebb wrote:
>> Of the last 6 runs, only 1 had
On 1/11/15 11:19 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/10/15 10:49 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/9/15 6:09 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 10 January 2015 at 01:01, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 1/9/15 5:32 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 9 January 2015 at 23:48, sebb wrote:
>> Of the last 6 runs, only 1 had a problem
On 1/10/15 10:49 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/9/15 6:09 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 10 January 2015 at 01:01, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 1/9/15 5:32 PM, sebb wrote:
On 9 January 2015 at 23:48, sebb wrote:
> Of the last 6 runs, only 1 had a problem with unit test failures.
>
> All the b
On 1/9/15 6:09 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 January 2015 at 01:01, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/9/15 5:32 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 9 January 2015 at 23:48, sebb wrote:
Of the last 6 runs, only 1 had a problem with unit test failures.
All the builds ran on ubuntu3, apart from the failure whi
On 10 January 2015 at 01:01, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/9/15 5:32 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 9 January 2015 at 23:48, sebb wrote:
>>> Of the last 6 runs, only 1 had a problem with unit test failures.
>>>
>>> All the builds ran on ubuntu3, apart from the failure which ran on H10.
>>> This may have some
On 1/9/15 5:32 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 9 January 2015 at 23:48, sebb wrote:
>> Of the last 6 runs, only 1 had a problem with unit test failures.
>>
>> All the builds ran on ubuntu3, apart from the failure which ran on H10.
>> This may have some bearing on the result; I don't yet know.
>>
>> I had a q
On 9 January 2015 at 23:48, sebb wrote:
> Of the last 6 runs, only 1 had a problem with unit test failures.
>
> All the builds ran on ubuntu3, apart from the failure which ran on H10.
> This may have some bearing on the result; I don't yet know.
>
> I had a quick look at 2 tests that failed:
>
> S
Of the last 6 runs, only 1 had a problem with unit test failures.
All the builds ran on ubuntu3, apart from the failure which ran on H10.
This may have some bearing on the result; I don't yet know.
I had a quick look at 2 tests that failed:
SimpleRegressionTest.testPerfect
SimpleRegressionTest.
27 matches
Mail list logo