> On March 14, 2013, 1:37 p.m., Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado wrote: > > As junit github download is not working, following Thomas Broyer comment, > > we can use this code in your new script: > > > > [[ -f $out/junit/junit.jar ]] || ( > > dir junit > > get http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/junit/junit/4.10/ junit-4.10.jar > > get http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/junit/junit/4.10/ junit-4.10-sources.jar > > mkdir -p $out/junit > > cp junit-4.10.jar $out/junit/junit.jar > > cp junit-4.10-sources.jar $out/junit/src.jar > > cd .. > > rm -rf junit > > ) > > > > Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado wrote: > LGTM, but can I help with this review? > > Ali Lown wrote: > Vicente, doesn't look like anybody else has any comments and this has > been sitting here for 2 weeks now. > > Feel free to directly commit this (and any other minor changes you wish > to make to this script) to the repository without needing to put it in an > explicit review request. > > Yuri Zelikov wrote: > Sorry, didn't see your comment. The change is LGTM. Actually I was > thinking about replacing the bash script with an ANT using the "get" task, > but this can be done later. > Regarding Ali's suggestion to directly commit minor changes - I think > such things should be done with caution and every change should be reviewed > unless the change is really minor, like fixing a typo or in case you posted a > review request but no one is available foe reviewing.
Perhaps a clarification was needed: I was only referring to minor changes during the application of Vicente's suggested fix above to make it work with the existing script. In general, I agree that for anything much more major than fixing a typo (or small scale whitespace changes), it is better to post a review request. Perhaps we should agree on something when reviews appear to stall (as happened with this review request for weeks/months), whereby no comments within X days/weeks implies it can be committed? - Ali ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9045/#review17872 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 21, 2013, 7:05 p.m., Yuri Zelikov wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/9045/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 21, 2013, 7:05 p.m.) > > > Review request for wave, Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado and Ali Lown. > > > Description > ------- > > Enhancements for get-third-party.sh script. > 1.Renames the script to use "-" instead of "_" to comply with the naming > policy > 2. Adds validation to the build.xml to warn in case the test dependencies are > missing. > > > Diffs > ----- > > README da77f49 > build.properties c476a82 > build.xml 3d3c125 > get-third-party.sh PRE-CREATION > get_third_party.sh d8b1ce2 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9045/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Yuri Zelikov > >
