Thanks Stefan for your time and patience :-)I think I finally got it merged
into the 1.9.x branch...(Where are the days where everything was so easy with
SVN ;-))
I did a little test, and I didn't see a difference compared to 1.10.3 in the
error output when a test has a failing static initializer.
thanks,Maarten
Van: Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Aan: dev@ant.apache.org
Verzonden: donderdag 5 april 8:25 2018
Onderwerp: Re: JunitTestRunner commit
On 2018-04-04, Maarten Coene wrote:
> Since this is more or less my first commit to the Ant codebase, could
> someone please review my change to JunitTestRunner ?
Typo in WHATSNEW (until rather than untill).
I think the change is good, although I'm not sure whether there is a
difference in how a failure in the static initializer of a real test
class gets reported now. I.e. do I get the exact same error/failure
output from your testStaticInitializerErrorTestCase that would be
created in 1.10.3?
> And if all is ok, what is the correct way to merge this into the 1.9.x
> branch?
Personally I prefer to do it the other way around - commit to 1.9.x and
merge to master - but that's too late now. In either case, as the master
branch is evolving merge conflicts will become more prevalent over
time. Most likely you will get by with just a single conflict in
WHATSNEW that you'll need to resolve manually. Something like
git checkout 1.9.x
git cherry-pick 30c9dee9bad90e56703554d21819cec6033276dc
# most likely resolve conflict and commit
git cherry-pick 20b6163989fdf4e98d7739fca3cdf9f18a5bdc7a
should probably work. If you need any help, please ask.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
