On Dec 4, 2007 12:20 AM, Paul Dlug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Dan Janowski wrote: > > > Paul, > > > > It looks fine at first glance, but I have not had time to apply the > > patch and examine the results. The library is a lot less fragile than > > when I got it, but I need to be careful when adding code that is not > > fixing a bug to be sure not to blow something else up. > > I understand, I'm just happy it's now usable and being maintained. The > slow performance of REXML was killing me. That being said there's > still a lot of work to do... > > > Thanks for the patch. Have any interest in contributing more? > > Definitely, I'm going to take a stab at fixing the namespace segfault > I reported along with this patch submission. What do you think about > switching to RSpec and increasing the test coverage? I'd be happy to > kick this off. This would lead to more thorough test coverage and test > cases that are actually descriptive, the current structure is too > cryptic to be really useful.
Please, no RSpec at this point. We need to focus on release. Changing test suites can wait. Thanks, T. _______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
