Gump rocks. Thanks for responding so quickly.
R, Nick
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Adam Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter wrote: "revert the script test that showed up the problem in
the first place". Sorry, but what does this mean to the
non-antdev-initiated?
I committed a patch that was supposed to improve performance and lower memory consumption about a week ago. Peter reported that one of our unit tests for the <script> task now failed (as it added tasks to the current target).
We talked a little about if/how to fix it. The outcome more or less was that you shouldn't be modifying the current target with <script> so an exception was better than relying on undefined behavior. So we changed the unittest and left the situation as it was (planning to document it, off course). We somehow managed to overlook the "top-level-target and <import>" issue.
The unittest has been reverted, now that the behavior is defined.
You can (at the least) count on us to report any failures we get to
the ant list. :-)
This is much appreciated.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
