On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Kev Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When the final version (1.7.0) is released, this code will work
> fine, do you want to make it more robust for the beta release?
I'd just accept that it doesn't like "beta" as a number and not worry
too much, maybe even disable the tes
Hello Kev,
at first glance it looks OK.
Regards,
Antoine
Kev Jackson wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
>
> As you requested, I've modified AntVersion to pass the failing test with
> the beta, without using positional indexing (brittle) code - please see
> commit for more details. Again if you spot a proble
Hi Antoine,
As you requested, I've modified AntVersion to pass the failing test with
the beta, without using positional indexing (brittle) code - please see
commit for more details. Again if you spot a problem with this please
let me know, I'll try to get it fixed asap.
Thanks,
Kev
---
Hello Kevin,
On Aug 28, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Kev Jackson wrote:
Hi all,
AntVersion test is failing because the current Ant version number is
1.7.0Beta1 - the Beta1 characters are causing the DeweyDecimal code to
fail. It's also extremely difficult to test in isolation as the
version
string is
Hi all,
AntVersion test is failing because the current Ant version number is
1.7.0Beta1 - the Beta1 characters are causing the DeweyDecimal code to
fail. It's also extremely difficult to test in isolation as the version
string is set when the build is completed, so the unit tests fail with
@VERSI
