Wearing my Gump hat, this sounds really bad. If we introduce a new feature in Ant we use Gump to testdrive it for backwards compatibility. Having known bugs inside the test drive doesn't seem a good idea to me.
I think it comes down to the relative timeframe for these operations.
Firstly, if a bug is a Gump showstopper, it would be merged pretty quickly. If not, then I don't see that much of an issue. Since the merge timeframe, even at a week or month, is still much shorter than the release timeframe the number of Gump runs with the known bug would be relatively small, compared to the number of eventual runs with the fix.
Conor
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
