On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is that you have not committed something about this? > > Hm.. no, it still needs to be fixed, and yes, when it's fixed I agree that > it should be changed as you say. > > It seems the "not-copy-state" was something I intended to do, but never > actually did. My bad.
Ok, no worries. I am on this at the moment, and looking at why the various testcases failing after the changes I think is accurate. Once I know why, I'll ask you to review/check it and see if it makes sense. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
