> On Feb. 23, 2017, 10:18 p.m., Kirk Lund wrote:
> > +1 I know this change is good and would be safe commit it as is, however we
> > have been trying to create UnitTests for any class that we touch that
> > doesn't already have a UnitTest. As a whole, the project relies too much on
> > end-to-
> On Feb. 23, 2017, 10:18 p.m., Kirk Lund wrote:
> > +1 I know this change is good and would be safe commit it as is, however we
> > have been trying to create UnitTests for any class that we touch that
> > doesn't already have a UnitTest. As a whole, the project relies too much on
> > end-to-
> On Feb. 23, 2017, 10:18 p.m., Kirk Lund wrote:
> > +1 I know this change is good and would be safe commit it as is, however we
> > have been trying to create UnitTests for any class that we touch that
> > doesn't already have a UnitTest. As a whole, the project relies too much on
> > end-to-
> On Feb. 23, 2017, 10:18 p.m., Kirk Lund wrote:
> > +1 I know this change is good and would be safe commit it as is, however we
> > have been trying to create UnitTests for any class that we touch that
> > doesn't already have a UnitTest. As a whole, the project relies too much on
> > end-to-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56964/#review166590
---
+1 I know this change is good and would be safe commit it as is, h
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56964/#review166546
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Darrel Schneider
On Feb. 22, 2017, 7:03
