Seconded on both I'll update the wiki page tomorrow
On Tue 3 Jan 2017 at 21:44, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> wrote: > Am 2017-01-02 um 21:34 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > > On 2 January 2017 at 20:15, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >>>> MNG-6029, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'd second this for 3.5.1 > > >>>>> I have concerns with introducing for 3.5.0 as it affects how the > > >>>>> classpath > > >>>>> gets built and could cause behaviour differences between 3.3.9 and > 3.5.0 > > >>>>> (as it causes the test classpath to actually get resolved) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -1 for 3.5.0 but I am open to change my position > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> It is actually two-fold, duplicate code and wrong scope. Fix has been > > >>>> there for seven months without causing any IT failures. I think is is > a > > >>>> safe bet for an RC. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> But it breaks my goal for 3.5.0... the duplicate code part is OK for > > >>> 3.5.0... but the fixing the scope bug is why I remain -1. Perfectly > fine > > >>> for 3.5.1 > > >>> > > >> > > >> Let's split it! What do you think? > > > > > > > > > I am fine on the duplicate code removal for 3.5.0 as it should be a > no-op. > > > > > > Create a new JIRA for the test scope change then and we can include that > in > > > for 3.5.1? > > > > Here are the splitted issues: > > > [MNG-6147] MetadataResolutionResult#getGraph() contains duplicate if > clause > > > > FIX-3.5.0 > > > > > [MNG-6149] MetadataResolutionResult#getGraph() never resolves request > type 'test' > > > > FIX-3.5.1 > > > > Is that ok for you? > > > > Michael > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > -- Sent from my phone
