That seems better thanks. We really need some unit tests for this
dependency reduced pom logic. It looks like ShadeMojoTest doesn't
actually test ShadeMojo but duplicates DefaultShaderTest.
Do you want me to retrospectively raise an issue for this?
Cheers,
Mark
2008/7/18 Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL P
Can you try again with the code on trunk? Just committed some more
changes.
Dan
On Jul 18, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Mark Hobson wrote:
2008/7/16 Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I just verified with CXF that if I use maven 2.0.7, the reduced pom
has many
extra excludes. I've gone ahead an
2008/7/16 Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I just verified with CXF that if I use maven 2.0.7, the reduced pom has many
> extra excludes. I've gone ahead and added some code to the ShadeMojo to
> double check if it's an irrelevant exclude and not bother. This isn't
> needed with 2.0.9, but it
I just verified with CXF that if I use maven 2.0.7, the reduced pom
has many extra excludes. I've gone ahead and added some code to the
ShadeMojo to double check if it's an irrelevant exclude and not
bother. This isn't needed with 2.0.9, but it is with 2.0.7. Can
you checkout the co
One more thought while you're playing around try different
versions of maven. This is something that might be working correctly
with maven 2.0.9 (and probably 2.0.8) but may not be with 2.0.7 and
earlier due to all the fixes that were put in the dependency tree
resolution stuff.
I'll try to knock up a few test cases tomorrow to get to the bottom of this.
Cheers,
Mark
2008/7/16 Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I just checked and if I reverse that logic, I get things like:
>
>
> org.springframework
> spring-core
> 2.0.8
> compile
>
>
I just checked and if I reverse that logic, I get things like:
org.springframework
spring-core
2.0.8
compile
commons-logging
commons-logging
commons-logging
commons-logging
1.1.1
co
I think the comment is wrong. If it's two levels deep and included, it was
stuff that was originally excluded and needs to be re-excluded. I doubt
there is a test for it, but it was tested in the OpenEJB project and in CXF.
Dan
mihobson wrote:
>
> I've noticed that dependency reduced
On 15/07/2008, at 8:32 PM, Mark Hobson wrote:
I've noticed that dependency reduced pom produced by the shade plugin
contains unnecessary exclusions. Checking the code, in ShadeMojo:825
we have:
//anything two levels deep that is not marked
"included"
//is stuff
I've noticed that dependency reduced pom produced by the shade plugin
contains unnecessary exclusions. Checking the code, in ShadeMojo:825
we have:
//anything two levels deep that is not marked "included"
//is stuff that was excluded by the original poms, make sure
10 matches
Mail list logo
