On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Petar Tahchiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once again sorry, and you can feel free to apply the patch to
> Ant 1.7.2 and Ant 1.8.
It already is in trunk, so it should go into 1.8. I'll see whether it
can go into 1.7.1.
Stefan
--
Hi everybody,
I am really, really sorry for my ignorance :-(.
I spent the whole day, trying to figure out what is
the reason for the vmCrashString to be null. And I found it,
actually :-). The reason was me :-). I unintentially was
adding the
to the classpath. After removing it, everyth
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Petar Tahchiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan, my patch was almost the same as your improved
> version.
OK, I've committed my changes as a first part.
> However, my patch had these additional lines:
>
> @@ -1035,7 +1024,7 @@
> if (watchdog != null && watch
Hi all,
Stefan, my patch was almost the same as your improved version. However, my
patch had these
additional lines:
@@ -1035,7 +1024,7 @@
if (watchdog != null && watchdog.killedProcess()) {
result.timedOut = true;
logTimeout(feArray, test, vmCrashSt
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Petar Tahchiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have modified Stefan's patch just a little bit, so that now
> everything works just perfect.
Your patch didn't make it to the list. Could you please take a
look at my revised patch to verify it works for you?
Thanks
Ste
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Petar Tahchiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in the execute(JUnitTest arg) method, too. Well, as Stefan
> suggested, we can put the
> if (delegate == null) {
> setupJUnitDelegate();
> }
>
> in executeInVM() method, that we call when we don't fork the JUnit
> execution. Wel
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, since Cactus replaces the execute method, would it not
> need to add code to call setupJUnitDelegate()
No, it is invoked implicitly by all methods that need a delegate if
none has been defined.
Stefan
--
Hi guys,
I have modified Stefan's patch just a little bit, so that now everything
works just perfect.
Please review it and approve it, if you think everything is OK. Otherwise,
please tell me
what is wrong with the patch, so that I can improve it.
Kind regards, Petar.
2008/2/15, Petar Tahchiev <
Hi everybody,
I like the solution of separating the configuration of the delegate object
in a new method most,also.
But the point is that this solution will be really hard for several reasons.
1) First of all, as Peter said, Cactus extends JUnit task and so we override
the
execute method. So we ha
This sounds excellent.
However, since Cactus replaces the execute method, would it not
need to add code to call setupJUnitDelegate()
Peter
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [Petar, it would be good if you subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Hi all,
[Petar, it would be good if you subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it is not that
high traffic anyway]
last night I chatted with Petar about the backwards incompatible
change to the JUnit task we introduced in Ant 1.7.0 that broke Cactus.
Cactus' Ant task extends th
Hi all,
[Petar, it would be good if you subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], it is not that
high traffic anyway]
last night I chatted with Petar about the backwards incompatible
change to the JUnit task we introduced in Ant 1.7.0 that broke Cactus.
Cactus' Ant task extends the JUnit task (and if mem
12 matches
Mail list logo
