Guys,
This is the issue I was referring to - looks like just the classpath
ordering, and so can just be documented.
Or is that overlooking a potential issue with 2.3.1 on 2.0.6?
Cheers,
Brett
-- Forwarded message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Dec 2007 1
I'd go with (1). I expect it will be clear enough why it's failing so
people will pick up the new usage fast enough. Can you mention the
"failIfNoTests=false" flag in the error message? (I assume the true is
a typo below?)
(3) is a possibility, but you can't really detect if tests are run a
Thanks Dan!
I'm just catching up again. I am planning to scan through all the
commits and see if anything catches my eye. I also saw an issue
reported on the users list that I'll drop into JIRA about the new code
working with 2.0.6 - which versions of Maven have you been testing
with? (I'
On 11/12/2007, at 3:17 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 10 Dec 07, at 4:04 PM 10 Dec 07, Brett Porter wrote:
On 11/12/2007, at 9:08 AM, Mauro Talevi wrote:
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Well - it was recently agreed that no vote was required for
alphas.
That's surprising to me... I'd at least post
On 10 Dec 07, at 4:04 PM 10 Dec 07, Brett Porter wrote:
On 11/12/2007, at 9:08 AM, Mauro Talevi wrote:
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Well - it was recently agreed that no vote was required for alphas.
That's surprising to me... I'd at least post to dev to make sure
you don't get a -1.
I distinct
On 10 Dec 07, at 11:10 AM 10 Dec 07, Dan Fabulich wrote:
Mauro Talevi wrote:
When you guys give the thumbs up, I'll copy stage to repo.
+1 Thumbs up!
I think it's also time to move the code out of sandbox and into
trunk, and call the version beta-1-SNAPSHOT.
You would need to call a v
On 11/12/2007, at 9:08 AM, Mauro Talevi wrote:
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Well - it was recently agreed that no vote was required for alphas.
That's surprising to me... I'd at least post to dev to make sure
you don't get a -1.
I distinctly remember that alphas should be released with more ease
SUREFIRE-350 suggests that "if test parameter is provided, and no match is
found, an error should occur, not a successful build with 0 tests." That
made sense to me, so I checked in a fix in revision 597952.
However, I discovered that this broke a certain maybe-standard usage: if
you've got
Mauro Talevi wrote:
When you guys give the thumbs up, I'll copy stage to repo.
+1 Thumbs up!
I think it's also time to move the code out of sandbox and into trunk, and
call the version beta-1-SNAPSHOT.
You would need to call a vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and have the vote pass.
Well - it
On Monday 10 December 2007, Mauro Talevi wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:09:45 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time), Dan Fabulich
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that means that if we release maven-shade-plugin
> > alpha-14, even without fixing MSHADE-9, we can release Surefire 2.4,
> > which would
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:47:27 -0500, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 10 December 2007, Mauro Talevi wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:09:45 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time), Dan Fabulich
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I think that means that if we release maven-shade-plugin
>> > a
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:09:45 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time), Dan Fabulich <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that means that if we release maven-shade-plugin
> alpha-14, even without fixing MSHADE-9, we can release Surefire 2.4, which
> would make me very happy. :-)
Staged alpha-14 at http://
Should have cc:ed surefire-dev also.
Here's the coverage report.
http://docs.codehaus.org/download/attachments/35422245/surefire-clover-2007-12-10.zip
-Dan
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:02:50 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
From: Dan Fabulich <[EMAIL PROTECTE
13 matches
Mail list logo
