On 11/11/06, Knut Anders Hatlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it's best if we can keep the test running, so I'd go for the policy alteration until the test can be rewritten. Or to put it differently, I think compatibility testing is more important than testing that no part of the code reads junit.properties. :)
Filed DERBY-2076 for fixing the test and checked in the policy file fix with revision 474593. I'm still confused by why the policy file change was needed, since I can see from RunTest's output that the value for derbyTesting.junit that is getting passed to the forked VM appears to be valid. If I have some time I'll investigate it further. andrew
