Hi Bret,
IMHO, your proposal is the way maven should go. This is a generic way to
express any new kind of project topology.
I think Micha's proposal is just another extension that describe what
should be done, which is NOT good. I think maven's first essence was to
describe a project and not what
Hi Brett!
I would rather prefer to make it differently.
a) junit tests should be left as they are. (still no way to skip them!)
b) For other types of tests (integration tests, stress tests etc.)
we can make it similarly as it was done with Reports (plugable API):
cactus
httpU
What I like in particular is that you change the element 'build' into set.
The name build gives the impression it is an action that is described, while
it is actually a structure of a project, upon which the generic actions are
based.
Gino.
> -Original Message-
> Hi,
>
> Based on the dis
