Take a look at my last attachment to see how an it test should be made as simple as possible
On 2/20/06, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tried to make it as easy as possible but maybe I could have done more. > This is a complicated issue because of the classloading so it requires > installation of a dependency in the repository to fully reproduce the > issue. See the updated comment in the issue for the exact steps I just > took to reproduce it with the original test case. > > Regardless of the specifics on this issue, I would have expected that if > the test case was broken or someone was confused, that a comment would > be added. That's the part that is frustrating: when you hear nothing on > an issue and it gets bounced. I can appreciate that if it's too hard to > reproduce or isn't very important, fine just say so. At least then I > know why and can see what I can do to help. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carlos > Sanchez > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 4:42 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Rationale for which bugs make a release? > > Well, the easier the test case is to use the faster it's solved. If i > have to spend a lot of time just setting up the environment it's likely > that it'll be delayed. Please see my attached test cases for a better > test case fully automated. > > On 2/20/06, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The jar is included in the other attachment. It's hard to see with all > > > the other comments, but this is how to reproduce: > > > > "Install the jar in test-1.0.zip to the local repo and build the > > plugin in test-case. Run the plugin by using mvn test:enhance > > > > In 2.0 it will print where it found the factory class, in 2.0.1 it > > will crash " > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Carlos Sanchez > > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 4:28 PM > > To: Maven Developers List > > Subject: Re: Rationale for which bugs make a release? > > > > The test case attached doesn't work, there're missing dependencies > > > > On 2/20/06, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I guess I'm a little confused about how something is decided which > > > release a fix goes into. Here's a good example: MNG-1898. This is > > > functionality that was broken between 2.0 and 2.0.1. It is listed as > > > > a > > > > > blocker and has reproducible test cases associated with it, yet this > > > > one didn't make the 2.0.3 release. The test case has been attached > > > since just before 2.0.2 was released. > > > > > > Don't get me wrong, you guys have done geat work, but it's > > > discouraging to see so many issues get bumped from revision to > > revision. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > I could give you my word as a Spaniard. > > No good. I've known too many Spaniards. > > -- The Princess Bride > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > I could give you my word as a Spaniard. > No good. I've known too many Spaniards. > -- The Princess Bride > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional > commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- I could give you my word as a Spaniard. No good. I've known too many Spaniards. -- The Princess Bride --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
