CL committed. Follow-up comments welcome. On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM, John Hjelmstad <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
