On 20/04/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 20/04/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> sebb wrote:
> >> > On 18/04/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> >> I will revert this if there are objections or failures on other
> >> >> JDKs. If there are no objections or failures, I will do the sa
sebb wrote:
> On 20/04/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > On 18/04/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> I will revert this if there are objections or failures on other
>> >> JDKs. If there are no objections or failures, I will do the same
>> >> for GKOP tests. All current tests pass f
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-vfs-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This is
On 20/04/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 18/04/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> I will revert this if there are objections or failures on other
> >> JDKs. If there are no objections or failures, I will do the same
> >> for GKOP tests. All current tests pass for me, but the adde
sebb wrote:
> On 18/04/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> I will revert this if there are objections or failures on other
>> JDKs. If there are no objections or failures, I will do the same
>> for GKOP tests. All current tests pass for me, but the added
>> synchronization may make them less sensitiv
On 18/04/2010, Phil Steitz wrote:
> I will revert this if there are objections or failures on other
> JDKs. If there are no objections or failures, I will do the same
> for GKOP tests. All current tests pass for me, but the added
> synchronization may make them less sensitive, so we may wish
