On 2010-11-09, Ludmila Shikhvarg wrote:
> I've discovered some ant's problem during gump testing with jdk7
Thank you for reporting them. It might be a good idea to open bugzilla
issues for them.
> 1. The projects below failed to compile with jdk7 (1.7.0):
> junit, test-junit
...
> [javac] jav
Hi,
I've discovered some ant's problem during gump testing with jdk7
1. The projects below failed to compile with jdk7 (1.7.0):
junit, test-junit
hamcrest, hamcrest-java, hamcrest-java-unit-test, hamcrest-java-all
args4j, args4j-tools, args4j-tests
tomcat-tc6, javax.el, javax.servlet, javax.servl
On 2010-11-09, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> I've peeked into the thread that followed but not read everything, yet.
Well, I should have, obviously, since everything I added has already
been said by DD and the target-alternative I suggested was already
dismissed.
I see that if the task really is restr
On 2010-11-09, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
> Le 9 nov. 2010 à 13:39, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
>> On 2010-11-09, wrote:
>>> Add a task to bind a target to an extension point.
>> Might be controversial.
I've peeked into the thread that followed but not read everything, yet.
In no way did I want to i
2010/11/9 Nicolas Lalevée :
>> From the doc you just checked in, I now read:
>>
>> +The bindtargets task may only be used as a top-level task. This means
>> that
>> +it may not be used in a target.
>>
>> So maybe I was wrong. I didn't see the code enforcing that though?
>> What prevents this task
Le 9 nov. 2010 à 17:39, Dominique Devienne a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Dominique Devienne
> wrote:
>> The reason I'm a little reluctant on is that it's a task
>> that affects the dependency graph of targets, but bypassing the normal
>> means to do that, via . Since it's a task
Le 9 nov. 2010 à 17:34, Dominique Devienne a écrit :
> 2010/11/9 Nicolas Lalevée :
>> That's what I thought, this proposed task being quite trivial and having no
>> side effect.
>> Obviously for larger patch or behavior change I would come first to the ML,
>> like I did for the project helpers
2010/11/9 Nicolas Lalevée :
> That's what I thought, this proposed task being quite trivial and having no
> side effect.
> Obviously for larger patch or behavior change I would come first to the ML,
> like I did for the project helpers for instance.
Fair enough. A follow up email to the ML is go
Le 9 nov. 2010 à 16:23, Matt Benson a écrit :
>
> On Nov 9, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:35 AM, wrote:
>>> +msg.append(" depends of: ");
>>
>> That doesn't sound correct somehow. " depends on "? " dependent of/on "?
>>
>> Co
Le 9 nov. 2010 à 16:19, Dominique Devienne a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:14 AM, wrote:
>> +
>
> %s/binded/bound/g
argh, good catch.
thanks.
Nicolas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additi
Le 9 nov. 2010 à 16:27, Matt Benson a écrit :
>
> On Nov 9, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
>
>> 2010/11/9 Nicolas Lalevée :
>>> Note: I'll commit the unit test and doc I have wrote about this task. I
>>> don't want to enforce anything, just share the work I have done. It is
>>> s
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> The reason I'm a little reluctant on is that it's a task
> that affects the dependency graph of targets, but bypassing the normal
> means to do that, via . Since it's a task, it can be run at
> any time, conditionally or not, inside a t
On Nov 9, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> 2010/11/9 Nicolas Lalevée :
>> Note: I'll commit the unit test and doc I have wrote about this task. I
>> don't want to enforce anything, just share the work I have done. It is still
>> up to debate and can still be reverted.
>
> Well, pr
On Nov 9, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:35 AM, wrote:
>> +msg.append(" depends of: ");
>
> That doesn't sound correct somehow. " depends on "? " dependent of/on "?
>
> Could native speakers chime in please? Thanks, --DD
I agree:
On Nov 9, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> 2010/11/9 Nicolas Lalevée :
>> Note: I'll commit the unit test and doc I have wrote about this task. I
>> don't want to enforce anything, just share the work I have done. It is still
>> up to debate and can still be reverted.
>
> Well, pr
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:14 AM, wrote:
> +
%s/binded/bound/g
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
Le 9 nov. 2010 à 13:39, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
> On 2010-11-09, wrote:
>
>> Add a task to bind a target to an extension point.
>
> Might be controversial. What is the use-case?
It is helping when some build files are shared between projects.
The use case is that I have some common shared
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:35 AM, wrote:
> + msg.append(" depends of: ");
That doesn't sound correct somehow. " depends on "? " dependent of/on "?
Could native speakers chime in please? Thanks, --DD
-
To uns
On 2010-11-09, wrote:
> Add a task to bind a target to an extension point.
Might be controversial. What is the use-case?
>public void setTargets(String target) {
>String[] inputs = target.split(",");
Wouldn't a nested element like 's nested be the better
choice?
Stefan
2010/11/9 Nicolas Lalevée :
> Note: I'll commit the unit test and doc I have wrote about this task. I don't
> want to enforce anything, just share the work I have done. It is still up to
> debate and can still be reverted.
Well, process-wise we tend to discuss things out on the ML before
committ
20 matches
Mail list logo
