Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Steve Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't know, though, guys. What do you think? Is it really worth
it to avoid making the users upgrade?
For me it depends on when you wanted to see the new task.
If you wanted to include it in 1.6.4 (which is unli
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Steve Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know, though, guys. What do you think? Is it really worth
> it to avoid making the users upgrade?
For me it depends on when you wanted to see the new task.
If you wanted to include it in 1.6.4 (which is unlikely to happen
an
Steve Cohen wrote:
Steve Cohen wrote:
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 12 May 2005, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+For all users, a minimum version of commons-net of 1.4.0 is
now required.
Is this really true?
I understand it is required to compile or if you use one of
the new features. But if you
Steve Cohen wrote:
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 12 May 2005, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+For all users, a minimum version of commons-net of 1.4.0 is now
required.
Is this really true?
I understand it is required to compile or if you use one of
the new features. But if you use the same way yo
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 12 May 2005, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+For all users, a minimum version of commons-net of 1.4.0 is now required.
Is this really true?
I understand it is required to compile or if you use one of
the new features. But if you use the same way you did
before and use
On 12 May 2005, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +For all users, a minimum version of commons-net of 1.4.0 is now
> required.
Is this really true?
I understand it is required to compile or if you use one of
the new features. But if you use the same way you did
before and use a binary insta
Hi Steve,
glad to read a commit mail from you on the ant list.
Can you merge your change on the ANT_16 branch ?
Cheers,
Antoine
> scohen 2004/06/28 19:27:45
>
> Modified:docs/manual install.html
> Log:
> update to reflect the latest release of commons-net which fixed some
> bugs
The only thing thats needs to be done is that
the ant manual for 1.6 should be correct.
The contents of the manual would indicate the
versions that do work - this will depend
on when ant 1.6 is released ;-)
and when newer versions of BSF are released.
Peter
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 12:17, Stefan Bo
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In this case, I will fill a bug report against bsf in bugzilla,
> asking them to support the latest version of rhino. Comments ?
They already know - and BSF's CVS works, no need for an additional bug
report IMHO.
Stefan
Apar
, June 30, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ant/docs/manual install.html
> Yep it works with CVS versions,
> but the latest released versions of both
> do not work together.
>
> bsf 2.3.0 rc1
> and Rhino 1.5R4 or Rhino 1.5R4
Yep it works with CVS versions,
but the latest released versions of both
do not work together.
bsf 2.3.0 rc1
and Rhino 1.5R4 or Rhino 1.5R41
gives the error:
java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:
org.mozilla.javascript.Context.getDebuggableEngine()Lorg/mozilla/javascript/debug/DebuggableEngine;
Peter
On
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This information was helpful for me setting up the use of Javascript
> in ant.
Oh, I'm sure it was.
> Concerning Rhino 1.5R4, the question is : does ant javascript !!!
> run !!! (not compile) properly with it ?
We have a s
: does ant javascript !!! run !!!
(not compile) properly
with it ?
Cheers,
Antoine
- Original Message -
From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ant/docs/manual install.html
>
On 28 Jun 2003, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> bsf2.3 is recommended.
Uhm, bsf 2.3 or higher is required would be better. 1.6's
14 matches
Mail list logo
