On 14/11/06, Steve Vinoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And in the context of your email I read that as implying that maven > was part of that. Maybe that was a misinterpretation but it certainly > read like that to me. Saying that "maven is required" would clearly be provably wrong, wouldn't it? So why would you think that that's what I'm saying?
I have no idea what you believe or don't believe, I can only interpret based on what you write.
Actually, no. It was mere days of effort. I was traveling for several weeks in the middle of that work, and once I got back into the work, I ran into the issue of the poorly-structured tests. I tried multiple avenues around the test issues and around the junit4 issues, which took a few days, but once I refactored the tests, the new mvn branch took just a few hours on Sunday to put together.
But you stated in an earlier email that you were working until 2am yesterday on it? Or am I putting words in your mouth again? RG
