https://github.com/gruntjs/grunt-contrib-qunit/issues/76
There is no way to tell grunt-contrib-qunit to use dynamically assigned
port ... :-/
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Andrea Del Bene
wrote:
> ok, got it :).
>
ok, got it :).
[INFO] Running "connect:server" (connect) task
[INFO] Fatal error: Port 38889 is already in use by another process.
[INFO]
I guess is a little problem with Buildbot and Grunt. 'mvn built' works
fine on my machine.
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder wicket-branch-6
I guess is a little problem with Buildbot and Grunt. 'mvn built' works
fine on my machine.
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder wicket-branch-6.x while
building wicket.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/wicket-branch-6.x/builds/130
Buildbot URL: http:/
Is there a way to clean the workspace? It's failing on files that are not even
part of the module anymore.
Emond
On Friday 22 November 2013 08:48:09 build...@apache.org wrote:
> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder wicket-branch-6.x
while
> building wicket. Full details are availa
Martijn,
I guess you didn't see the commit and you assumed that I used :
Random.nextInt() to get port number.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> Why do you think so ?
> By using "new Server(0)" Jetty will bind to a random and *unused* port.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9
Why do you think so ?
By using "new Server(0)" Jetty will bind to a random and *unused* port.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Which will fail randomly :-)
>
> though less frequently
>
> Martijn
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sven Meier wrote:
> > With Martin's la
Actually it uses any *available* port, so the fail frequency should be
near zero ;).
Sven
On 08/05/2013 09:32 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Which will fail randomly :-)
though less frequently
Martijn
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sven Meier wrote:
With Martin's last commit the HttpUnit ba
Which will fail randomly :-)
though less frequently
Martijn
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sven Meier wrote:
> With Martin's last commit the HttpUnit based tests use a random port.
>
> Sven
>
>
> On 08/03/2013 12:45 AM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>>
>> Should we do something to avoid that? Could
With Martin's last commit the HttpUnit based tests use a random port.
Sven
On 08/03/2013 12:45 AM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
Should we do something to avoid that? Could the different branches use
different ports? Or some buildbot-config?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Should we do something to avoid that? Could the different branches use
different ports? Or some buildbot-config?
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> You should commit with some delay between master and wicket-6.x because
> otherwise wicket-examples' test fail to use the sa
You should commit with some delay between master and wicket-6.x because
otherwise wicket-examples' test fail to use the same http port...
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM, wrote:
> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder wicket-branch-6.x while
> building wicket.
> Full details are ava
11 matches
Mail list logo
