I checked these over and agree, they look good, and all the ITs pass,
so I went ahead and applied them. Thanks for figuring out the 3599
inconsistency :)
Cheers,
Brett
On 29/10/2008, at 3:42 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Please try it out and see if we have any remaining regressions over
2.0.9.
It's not a regression but would nicely fit our efforts to stabilize
things: While investigating why 2.0.10-RC1 passed the IT MNG-3599
for Brett but not for me, I discovered MNG-3805. It's just another
issue about using LinkedHashSet/-Map vs. HashSet/-Map. I have by now
both a proposed patch and the IT available.
So, if somebody considers it sensible, we could additionally fix
- MNG-3805
- MNG-3424
- MNG-3599
for 2.0.10.
Benjamin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
