You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@buildr.apache.org by Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt <pe...@luciad.com> on 2010/05/31 14:16:17 UTC
Fixing the specs on Windows
I've been going through the specs and up until now all failures are
related to utime not behaving as expected on windows. I'm changing the
specs so that they don't rely on utime but use sleeps instead. This
makes the specs much more reliable (se linux doesn't allow mtime to be
set in the past either IIRC), at the cost of slightly slower execution
due to the sleeps. Is this acceptable?
Pepijn
Re: Fixing the specs on Windows
Posted by Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>.
We'll live.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:16, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt <
pepijn.vaneeckhoudt@luciad.com> wrote:
> I've been going through the specs and up until now all failures are related
> to utime not behaving as expected on windows. I'm changing the specs so that
> they don't rely on utime but use sleeps instead. This makes the specs much
> more reliable (se linux doesn't allow mtime to be set in the past either
> IIRC), at the cost of slightly slower execution due to the sleeps. Is this
> acceptable?
>
> Pepijn
>
Fixing the specs on Windows
Posted by Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>.
Fine by me and thanks for picking that up.
Alex
On Monday, May 31, 2010, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt
<pe...@luciad.com> wrote:
> I've been going through the specs and up until now all failures are related to utime not behaving as expected on windows. I'm changing the specs so that they don't rely on utime but use sleeps instead. This makes the specs much more reliable (se linux doesn't allow mtime to be set in the past either IIRC), at the cost of slightly slower execution due to the sleeps. Is this acceptable?
>
> Pepijn
>
Re: Fixing the specs on Windows
Posted by Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>.
Fine by me and thanks for picking that up.
Alex
On Monday, May 31, 2010, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt <
pepijn.vaneeckhoudt@luciad.com> wrote:
> I've been going through the specs and up until now all failures are
related to utime not behaving as expected on windows. I'm changing the specs
so that they don't rely on utime but use sleeps instead. This makes the
specs much more reliable (se linux doesn't allow mtime to be set in the past
either IIRC), at the cost of slightly slower execution due to the sleeps. Is
this acceptable?
>
> Pepijn
>