On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 15:18 -0800, Alex Boisvert wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Martin Grotzke < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 11:27 -0800, Alex Boisvert wrote: > > > I believe it's an indirect dependency. > > > > > > Let's say I have 2 modules "foo" and "bar". > > > > > > bar:test depends on foo:package (say for a jar), but foo:package depends > > on > > > foo:test. > > Ok, makes sense. > > > > > > > > So I think the option would be to break the dependency between package > > and > > > test so that you can manually specify only the tests you want to run. > > Is this possible somehow for this scenario? > > Or is it possible, to specify that projects that the current one > > dependends on shall not be built? > > > It's possible with some coding, not possible as-is. > > I was discussing this with Assaf who happens to be sitting next to me and > our main concern is giving an option that effectively disables a lot of > "magic" in Buidlr. The potential for shooting oneself in the foot is > considerable given that many don't necessarily understand all the > implications of transitive dependencies. > > If you've changed your Buildfile and added a dependency that hasn't been > built yet, and then run buildr --without-transitive-dependencies and the > build breaks, it's not clear whether most people will immediately understand > what happened or spend the next 45 minutes figuring out why buildr works > sometimes but not always. I agree, if building/testing of other modules/project does only occur if anything had changed therein this is totally ok.
Cheers, Martin > > alex
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
