At 3:11am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Kevin Hunter wrote:
At 2:58am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
(I assume you already stated somewhere what license your
contributions are under, even though that's not explicitly listed at
On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
At 4:15pm -0400 Tue, 04 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Thanks a lot for the patch. I think the real intent always was to
actually look through all the returned getSuperclasses(), and the
error that superclasses past the first one are effectively
At 2:58am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
Here is a second patch that compiles, /should/ respond to what you just
confirmed was the original intent, but is untested. (It was a random
drive by patching.) Specifically, I suppose it's
At 2:58am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
Here is a second patch that compiles, /should/ respond to what you just
confirmed was the original intent, but is untested. (It was a random
drive by patching.) Specifically, I suppose it's
Hi Kevin,
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 03:11 -0400, Kevin Hunter wrote:
(I assume you already stated somewhere what license your
contributions are under, even though that's not explicitly listed at
..
Heh, yeah, awhile ago. Had a whole discussion with the Meeks. :-)
Goodness; yes - that
On 10/05/2011 09:13 AM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
At 2:58am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
Here is a second patch that compiles, /should/ respond to what you just
confirmed was the original intent, but is untested. (It was a random
drive
At 5:39am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Unfortunately, there's no good unit tests for this code. Blame it on
me for taking the all too easy road out and committing the fix
without doing the boring ^H^H^H joyful work of adding a test for it
first.
There's no blame,[1] only
