ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maarten Coene <>
Subject Re: JunitTestRunner commit
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2018 15:01:42 GMT
Thanks Stefan for your time and patience :-)I think I finally got it merged into the 1.9.x
branch...(Where are the days where everything was so easy with SVN ;-))
I did a little test, and I didn't see a difference compared to 1.10.3 in the error output
when a test has a failing static initializer.

      Van: Stefan Bodewig <>
 Verzonden: donderdag 5 april 8:25 2018
 Onderwerp: Re: JunitTestRunner commit
On 2018-04-04, Maarten Coene wrote:

> Since this is more or less my first commit to the Ant codebase, could
> someone please review my change to JunitTestRunner ?

Typo in WHATSNEW (until rather than untill).

I think the change is good, although I'm not sure whether there is a
difference in how a failure in the static initializer of a real test
class gets reported now. I.e. do I get the exact same error/failure
output from your testStaticInitializerErrorTestCase that would be
created in 1.10.3?

> And if all is ok, what is the correct way to merge this into the 1.9.x
> branch?

Personally I prefer to do it the other way around - commit to 1.9.x and
merge to master - but that's too late now. In either case, as the master
branch is evolving merge conflicts will become more prevalent over
time. Most likely you will get by with just a single conflict in
WHATSNEW that you'll need to resolve manually. Something like

git checkout 1.9.x
git cherry-pick 30c9dee9bad90e56703554d21819cec6033276dc
# most likely resolve conflict and commit
git cherry-pick 20b6163989fdf4e98d7739fca3cdf9f18a5bdc7a

should probably work. If you need any help, please ask.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message