From: "Dominique Devienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Ant Users List"
To: "Ant Users List"
Subject: RE: How to supress output
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:56:51 -0600
>
> Pretty much; it goes through a lot of pain to set up
> the ExecuteStrea
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > --- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> > > AFAIK, works directly at the source
> of
> > > the output, in
> > > Execute, before it reaches the log sub-system.
> --DD
>
> From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > AFAIK, works directly at the source of
> > the output, in
> > Execute, before it reaches the log sub-system. --DD
>
> Pretty much; it goes through a lot of pain to set up
> the Execut
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
> AFAIK, works directly at the source of
> the output, in
> Execute, before it reaches the log sub-system. --DD
Pretty much; it goes through a lot of pain to set up
the ExecuteStreamHandler used by the Execute.
-Matt
_
> From: Russell Johannesson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > From: Russell Johannesson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that the problem under discussion isn't
necessarily
> > > specific
> > > to ClearCase. Wouldn't any task which employs Runtime.exec()
> >internally
> > > poten
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Russell Johannesson
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > It occurs to me that the problem under discussion
> isn't necessarily
> > specific
> > to ClearCase. Wouldn't any task which employs
> Runtime.exec()
> internally
> > potentially b
From: "Dominique Devienne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Ant Users List"
To: "Ant Users List"
Subject: RE: How to supress output
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:09:33 -0600
> From: Russell Johannesson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> It occurs to me that t
> From: Russell Johannesson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> It occurs to me that the problem under discussion isn't necessarily
> specific
> to ClearCase. Wouldn't any task which employs Runtime.exec()
internally
> potentially be a source of unwanted output? Would it be reasonable to
> request that
asks? That
way, having ClearCase wouldn't be necessary for testing.
From: Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ant Users List
Subject: RE: How to supress output
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:21:37 -0800 (PST)
...As for your testing the ClearCase changes, I
understand Steve's comments
I'm sure you're right. He was talking about committers/core developers. He
did say they would welcome a code contribution.
From: "Anderson, Rob (Global Trade)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Ant Users List"
To: "Ant Users List"
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED
> I imagine Steve meant that no -committer- has
> ClearCase.
Cool.
> Note that this is exactly the
> kind of situation that explains why we are loath to
> add more optional tasks to Ant.
>
> -Matt
Now I understand :) Fortunately, Curtis White (the original author of most of
the ClearCase Ant t
--- "Anderson, Rob (Global Trade)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have ClearCase. I can test it. Although I am not a
> committer, I have contributed tasks and bug fixes. I
> was a little surprised by Steve Loughran's response
> to the bug report.
>
> Steve, Question: Does developer = committer ?
tes to the code a developer?
-Rob Anderson
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Johannesson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:18 PM
> To: user@ant.apache.org
> Subject: RE: How to supress output
>
>
> I recently raised a simil
I recently raised a similar issue for ClearCase. In fact, I submitted an
enhancement request.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33169
One developer responded that no one had ClearCase, and so they couldn't test
such a change even if they made it. Perhaps this issue could be addre
14 matches
Mail list logo
