On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Stephane Bailliez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > What happens if fork="no" and forkmode="xxx" ?
>>
>> forkstyle/mode gets ignored.
>
> Which is
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Stephane Bailliez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What happens if fork="no" and forkmode="xxx" ?
>
> forkstyle/mode gets ignored.
Which is good. Please no warning message about forkmode being ignored
because not forking.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Stephane Bailliez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What happens if fork="no" and forkmode="xxx" ?
forkstyle/mode gets ignored.
> I would be more for using a single property for that, but it has its
> own long list of drawbacks.
including the fact that we have
public void setF
"Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I've added a forkstyle="once|perTest|perBatch" attribute to
> that gives more control over VM creation in forked tests.
> Before I start to write the docs for it, I'd like some feedback on the
> name of the attribute
Hi,
in case you haven't read yesterdays commit message, here is a quick
heads-up and request-for-comments.
I've added a forkstyle="once|perTest|perBatch" attribute to
that gives more control over VM creation in forked tests.
The old behavior is to fork a new VM for each test-class, this is wha
