DO NOT REPLY [Bug 42275] - running ant off a network share can cause Ant to fail

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: The Cactus/JUnit-Task problem

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 --

Re: The Cactus/JUnit-Task problem

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

Re: The Cactus/JUnit-Task problem

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

Re: [VOTE] add Nicolas Lalevée as committer

Xavier Hanin wrote: Hi All, Nicolas Lalevée has contributed a lot of patches to Ivy and IvyDE [1 to 10], and has been actively involved in several discussions, especially about IvyDE. He is always fair when giving his opinion, and often try to help other users. IvyDE is a subproject of Ivy con

Re: The Cactus/JUnit-Task problem

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

Re: The Cactus/JUnit-Task problem

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