Jason van Zyl wrote:
Though if you want to work on the ITs, I think the first thing that
would be useful is to get the core Maven plugins out of the ITs which we
are using for testing. Integration tests for plugins themselves should
be moved to their respective plugins and stay there.
O
Yep, let's just release 1.2 and nuke 1.1-SNAPSHOT.
I'll just look into releasing the the integration-testing-support
later, as it seems like you're plowing through some stuff :)
- Brett
On 18/09/2008, at 3:23 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
There is only one actively bei
Jason van Zyl wrote:
There is only one actively being used but I believe changes where made
to trunk (1.2-SNAPSHOT) which are required.
Not sure we are talking about the same: I wasn't concerned about the
sources of maven-verifier, only which version the artifact (from trunk)
has. We have ma
On 17-Sep-08, at 5:55 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
1) the answer to the question "what's the current release of the
verifier?" (it's 1.0, but there's 1.1-SNAPSHOT and 1.2-SNAPSHOT
floating around
Unless we really have two active branches for the maven-verifier,
one
Brett Porter wrote:
1) the answer to the question "what's the current release of the
verifier?" (it's 1.0, but there's 1.1-SNAPSHOT and 1.2-SNAPSHOT floating
around
Unless we really have two active branches for the maven-verifier, one at
1.1-SNAPSHOT and the other one at 1.2-SNAPSHOT, I gues
On 16-Sep-08, at 1:12 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
The ITs for example could easily use the invoker in shared.
Not as is I believe. The maven-invoker is intended to run Maven, not
more. The maven-verifier on the other hand appears to be a
conglomerate of these funct
Jason van Zyl wrote:
The ITs for example could easily use the invoker in shared.
Not as is I believe. The maven-invoker is intended to run Maven, not
more. The maven-verifier on the other hand appears to be a conglomerate
of these functionalities
- invoke Maven
- assert pre-/post-build cond
I'm enumerated the many verifiers and many invokers we have. The ITs
for example could easily use the invoker in shared.
On 15-Sep-08, at 8:14 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Brian E. Fox wrote:
If the only dependency for integration tests is the verifier, then
there's not much point in moving it
t: Re: releasing verifier / core-integration-testing-support
Brian E. Fox wrote:
>> If the only dependency for integration tests is the verifier, then
>> there's not much point in moving it into its own SVN structure, IMO.
>
> I think the verifier _is_ useful in Its outside of
Brian E. Fox wrote:
>> If the only dependency for integration tests is the verifier, then
>> there's not much point in moving it into its own SVN structure, IMO.
>
> I think the verifier _is_ useful in Its outside of maven core itself.
> Case in point: Nexus. We should move the verifier to be a f
>If the only dependency for integration tests is the verifier, then
>there's not much point in moving it into its own SVN structure, IMO.
I think the verifier _is_ useful in Its outside of maven core itself.
Case in point: Nexus. We should move the verifier to be a full-fledged
plugin.
I'm +1 for consolidating the helper and archetype/sample stuff into a
SVN tree, then releasing all that stuff. I'd probably agree that the
verifier needs to stay separate, though, since it's not specific to
maven's ITs anymore.
Also, (another tangent) we need to look into how we could start
r
I'm running on half a brain today (allergies), but I do want to make one
point that I feel is pretty important:
IMO we need to move away from generalized test plugins for use in the
maven core ITs ASAP. Normal object-oriented design concerns don't apply
well here, and factoring behavior into e
On 15/09/2008, at 10:40 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
It would still be separate. What I'm really suggesting is putting
the helper (abstract test base class, used by both Maven's test
suite and NMaven's test suite), in with the verifier and releasing
them together. Shared is fine too, but I w
On 15-Sep-08, at 11:55 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 15/09/2008, at 6:47 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I honestly don't think this is necessary. The real problem is lack
of consistency in deploying the IT ball. And honestly the IT ball
is fine for casual people trying to test things but is inef
On 15/09/2008, at 10:22 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 15-Sep-08, at 1:40 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
To clear up some of the confusion about snapshots in the area I'd
like to take the following steps:
What confusion?
1) the answer to the question "what's the current release of the
v
16 matches
Mail list logo
