Re: svn commit: r496356 - /maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/pom.xml

2007-03-17 Thread Jason van Zyl
On 17 Mar 07, at 6:29 AM 17 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote: Ok, coming back to this - these providers are still excluded from being built. Can we put them back into the main list of modules and put all the integration tests into a profile? Provided stuff does not fail because I don't have Cle

Re: svn commit: r496356 - /maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/pom.xml

2007-03-17 Thread Brett Porter
Ok, coming back to this - these providers are still excluded from being built. Can we put them back into the main list of modules and put all the integration tests into a profile? - Brett On 16/01/2007, at 7:06 PM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: agreed. Emmanuel Brett Porter a écrit : So... why

Re: svn commit: r496356 - /maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/pom.xml

2007-01-16 Thread Emmanuel Venisse
agreed. Emmanuel Brett Porter a écrit : So... why not comment out cvs and local too? Nobody uses them any more... and the local one is certainly the weirdest :) Personally, I'd turn all the integration-ish tests off in the normal build (including svn which is very long), and put them in a pr

Re: svn commit: r496356 - /maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/pom.xml

2007-01-15 Thread Brett Porter
So... why not comment out cvs and local too? Nobody uses them any more... and the local one is certainly the weirdest :) Personally, I'd turn all the integration-ish tests off in the normal build (including svn which is very long), and put them in a profile. On 16/01/2007, at 12:37 PM, Jaso

Re: svn commit: r496356 - /maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/pom.xml

2007-01-15 Thread Jason van Zyl
On 15 Jan 07, at 8:32 PM 15 Jan 07, Brett Porter wrote: For example, so that we can run them in CI and make sure they still build. Then why not let CI do the hard work and turn on the profile and make it easier for folks checking out and building? You were running them all anyway? So j

Re: svn commit: r496356 - /maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/pom.xml

2007-01-15 Thread Brett Porter
For example, so that we can run them in CI and make sure they still build. If we had multiple boxes and could target builds to where they could run, sure... but we're not there yet. - Brett On 16/01/2007, at 12:10 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On 15 Jan 07, at 7:54 PM 15 Jan 07, Brett Porter

Re: svn commit: r496356 - /maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/pom.xml

2007-01-15 Thread Jason van Zyl
On 15 Jan 07, at 7:54 PM 15 Jan 07, Brett Porter wrote: Yeah, I'd really rather we didn't put the builds in a profile, but instead moved the tests to the profile. Why? - Brett On 16/01/2007, at 2:40 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: Jason, clearcase, perforce, starteam, synergy and vss pro

Re: svn commit: r496356 - /maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/pom.xml

2007-01-15 Thread Brett Porter
Yeah, I'd really rather we didn't put the builds in a profile, but instead moved the tests to the profile. - Brett On 16/01/2007, at 2:40 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: Jason, clearcase, perforce, starteam, synergy and vss providers can be tested without SCM installations. Why do you put th

Re: svn commit: r496356 - /maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/pom.xml

2007-01-15 Thread Emmanuel Venisse
Jason, clearcase, perforce, starteam, synergy and vss providers can be tested without SCM installations. Why do you put them in a profile? Emmanuel [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Author: jvanzyl Date: Mon Jan 15 06:58:34 2007 New Revision: 496356 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=