Sam Ruby wrote:
This test fails when running with the latest (from cvs) nekohtml and a
2002-12-15 17:26:22 version of xerces.
There was a SAX bug in the 2002-12-15 commit that was fixed on
2002-12-19.
Can you check if Jelly still fails with the most recent Xerces +
nekohtml builds?
If yes, do
Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/01/2003 06:12:44 AM:
The following test failure:
http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/TEST-org.apache.commons.jelly.html.
TestJelly.txt
http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/TEST-org.apache.commons.jelly.html.
TestJelly.xml
Was caused by the following commit to
--- Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following test failure:
http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/TEST-org.apache.commons.jelly.html.TestJelly.txt
http://cvs.apache.org/~rubys/TEST-org.apache.commons.jelly.html.TestJelly.xml
Was caused by the following commit to Xerces:
Until the beanutils / jelly.ant.TestJelly problem is addressed, we won't
even get that far.
It is *possible* that this problem was really due to a Beanutils bug that
I just checked in the fix for:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15773
The next GUMP run should pick up the
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Until the beanutils / jelly.ant.TestJelly problem is addressed, we won't
even get that far.
It is *possible* that this problem was really due to a Beanutils bug that
I just checked in the fix for:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15773
The next
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Sam Ruby wrote:
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 15:46:30 -0500
From: Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [xerces][jelly] html test failure
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Until the beanutils
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Well, I'm sorry you guys still have the problem, but I'm happy it wasn't
my fault :-).
I wouldn't be so sure. If I roll back to before the following commit,
all works:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-devm=104049921212466w=2
If I roll forward to
--- Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Morgan Delagrange wrote:
It may be a bug in nekohtml. We're pointing to
0.6.5,
look at version 0.6.7:
http://www.apache.org/~andyc/neko/doc/html/changes.html
I'll see if I can talk the Maven folks into
uploading
the most recent
