ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: bug in ant 1.6.3 beta1?
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:08:24 GMT
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Greg Gimler <> wrote:

> This is probably the wrong forum to submit a bug for ant so I'll
> apologize in advance and hope that someone can redirect me to a more
> approrpriate place to discuss bugs.

The bug database would be the place to report and discuss bugs, but we
usually aren't picky about this.

> I've noticed a subtle bug (I think it's a bug anyways) in the way
> ant 1.6.3 now forks off java processes.  I've compared the behavior
> between 1.6.2 and 1.6.3.

Since we really want to maintain backwards compatibility (at a
reasonable level), this kind of report is important to us.

> Steps after untarring attached tarball
> 1) ant &
> This executes an application that performs a sleep, then prints out
> some text, followed by a wait call that should hang indefinitely.

How does it execute this?  <exec> or <java fork="true"/>?

> In the background it will run and you will see the print statement
> in 1.6.2 but not 1.6.3.

We have changed some things and those changes have been necessary to
properly terminate forked processes when Ant exits.  It also fixes
some cases where Ant was hung when forked off.

> If you hit enter you'll see that the job goes into the "Stopped"
> state in 1.6.3.

Isn't this what always happens if a background process tries write to
stdour/stderr on Unix like systems?

> So, first of all is this a bug or desired behavior in 1.6.3?

Without really looking into the issue too deeply, I'd guess it is the
desired behaviour.  But we should investigate what has changed to be
sure.  And in order to do that, we need some more information (and
should walk over to


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message