Arthur Blake wrote: > Any comments on this, or shall I just check it in? > I was thinking about checking it in for 1.3 branch (creating one if > necessary) and the trunk both...
It looks good to me. I wouldn't bother with a branch for 1.3 - this is a bug fix, the code change is small and all the tests pass. > Also, do you think we ought to get a build out for this fix right away? > Not sure how important this is- given that the bug has been in there > for over a year, and this is the first time someone found it! Ya, I think we should make a 1.3.1 but no major hurry. This weekend perhaps? > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Arthur Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Here is my first attempt at a patch. This patch also includes 4 > new unit tests. The unit tests are not exhaustive by any means, > but they expose the basic problem (2 out of 4 of the unit tests > fail off the 1.3 tag) but with the code change, all 4 pass. > > Patch attached in SVN diff format. > > Comments? > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Arthur Blake > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > I'm working on several unit tests that exposes these bugs-- > then I'll post here what I think the patch should be. > Once we are in agreement... I suppose we should create a 1.3 > branch and check it in there? > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Arthur Blake > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > It is public domain-- from here: > > > http://www.json.org/json2.js > > So I think we are safe hacking up pieces of it and using it. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Jabsorb-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.jabsorb.org/mailman/listinfo/jabsorb-dev > _______________________________________________ Jabsorb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.jabsorb.org/mailman/listinfo/jabsorb-dev
