Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> What do I need if just adding an optional flag for fixtures? Instead
> of my refactored two-class solution, I could just add a
> skip.on.failure={true,false} flag to extend the functionality of
> OnlineTestCase, as proposed by Andrea.
That also sounds good. In this ma
Jody Garnett wrote:
> I think I am still waiting for a proposal.
>
> ie A wiki page similar to the ones listed here:
> - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Proposals
>
> Of importance to me is:
> - jira task (you got that)
> - tasks with volunteer available for each one
> - api change BEFO
Ben Caradoc-Davies ha scritto:
> I still have no responses. Any objections?
Sorry, meant to answer, got sidetracked by other stuff.
However, I'm not really sure it should be the developer to decide
whether the server is under his control. It's usually
only the maven user that knows.
Say I want t
Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> I still have no responses. Any objections?
>
I think I am still waiting for a proposal.
ie A wiki page similar to the ones listed here:
- http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Proposals
Of importance to me is:
- jira task (you got that)
- tasks with volunteer av
I still have no responses. Any objections?
I also propose that we adopt a *FixtureTest convention, like
*OnlineTest, to make fixtures more easily recognised. I do not propose
any changes to the build procedure at this time, so this is a relaxation
of the requirement that all online-resource-bas
