commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks
XConfToolTask.java
On 12.03.2004 14:29, Stephan Michels wrote:
In the orginal form of the blocks-build.xsl, we had
separate targets
for the patch files. But it was incredible slow. Then I merge these
targets to one target, and rewrote
: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks
XConfToolTask.java
On 12.03.2004 14:29, Stephan Michels wrote:
In the orginal form of the blocks-build.xsl, we had
separate targets
for the patch files
-
From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks
XConfToolTask.java
On 12.03.2004 14:29, Stephan Michels wrote:
In the orginal form of the blocks-build.xsl, we had
On 11.03.2004 16:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stephan 2004/03/11 07:11:10
Modified:tools/src/anttasks XConfToolTask.java
Log:
Retry to apply patches, which depends on each other.
I really wonder why we re-implement the dependency resolving into a task
(how simple it might be) when
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 11.03.2004 16:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stephan 2004/03/11 07:11:10
Modified:tools/src/anttasks XConfToolTask.java
Log:
Retry to apply patches, which depends on each other.
I really wonder why we re-implement the dependency resolving into a
task (how
Unico Hommes wrote:
I thought that previously all xpatches for all blocks were
executed in one go instead of separately and respecting
dependency order.
No, one patch after the other was applied previously. The order
of the dependencies was used to define the order of the patches
to be
On 12.03.2004 13:01, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
I thought that previously all xpatches for all blocks were
executed in one go instead of separately and respecting
dependency order.
No, one patch after the other was applied previously. The order
of the dependencies was used to define the order of
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 12.03.2004 13:01, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
I thought that previously all xpatches for all blocks were
executed in
one go instead of separately and respecting dependency order.
No, one patch after the other was applied previously. The
order of the
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 12.03.2004 13:01, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
I thought that previously all xpatches for all blocks were
executed in
one go instead of separately and respecting dependency order.
No, one patch after the other was
Unico Hommes wrote:
Now should the changes to XConfToolTask be rolled back? I
think so, unless it has other advantages.
Yes, it helps keeping the dependencies correct.
Carsten
Am Fr, den 12.03.2004 schrieb Joerg Heinicke um 13:30:
On 12.03.2004 13:01, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
I thought that previously all xpatches for all blocks were
executed in one go instead of separately and respecting
dependency order.
No, one patch after the other was applied
11 matches
Mail list logo
