They did :) But I just kept all my own changes, since mine converted all tests to junit4 also.
-John On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Paul Lindner <[email protected]> wrote: > go ahead, hopefully the junit 4 cleanups don't collide with what you did... > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM, John Hjelmstad <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I'm planning to commit this code -- let me know if you have any >> misgivings; I'll revert if issues are found. >> >> Thanks, >> John >> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:46 PM, John Hjelmstad <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Paul, change made and tested. Anyone else have commentary? I'd >>> love some input, even if only on GadgetHtmlParser.java, where the bulk of >>> Neko-related potential side effects (given that Neko is still marked as >>> default parser) are introduced. >>> >>> --j >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:25 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Didn't have time to deeply look at this. Only obvious thing I noted is >>>> that the diff lib should be test scope. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/157161/diff/3092/2084 >>>> File java/gadgets/pom.xml (right): >>>> >>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/157161/diff/3092/2084#newcode133 >>>> java/gadgets/pom.xml:133: <artifactId>diff_match_patch</artifactId> >>>> This should be <scope>test</scope> so we don't include this in the >>>> deployed artifacts. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/157161 >>>> >>> >>> >> >
