On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Freeland Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> So yes, we can and should and I think have fixed the underlying problem.
> But the point to this patch is that if I found one way to wedge testing by
> making recordResultsAndGetNextMethod() throw an exception, latent
r3809, for the specific case of an unnamed test object; that's the "earler
'review request: JUnit hang'" thread I mentioned. I got approval from Bob
for that one when I realized you were gone for the week, but left this one
on your queue 'cause it was lower-priority given the "front door" fix and
Sorry for the delay. Shouldn't we fix the underlying problem, though?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Freeland Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Scott, can you review-or-delegate both this and my earlier "review request:
> JUnit hang"
> I just sent a patch up to block sending a "bad Test" to
