Can't promise yet but I'll see what I can do. alex
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:35 AM, John Shahid <[email protected]> wrote: > Will this change make it into next week release ? > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM, John Shahid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Awesome, let me know if there's anything I can do to help. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Alex Boisvert <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Oh, I see what you mean now. When I added the run task in buildr > 1.3.5, > >> I > >> didn't really think about the equivalence to "runtime" dependencies from > >> Maven world. I wanted the run task to require little / no > configuration. > >> > >> Anyway, looking back at it now, I think it would be better to use > >> run.dependencies. And following this, we can update other tasks to use > >> it > >> as well. It will help us align buildr's dependency model to Maven's > model > >> as well. > >> > >> alex > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:18 AM, John Shahid <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > What about run.classpath this is the set of runtime dependencies, I > >> always > >> > thought that *.classpath was the predecessor of *.dependencies and > soon > >> > run.classpath will be replaced by run.dependencies. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Alex Boisvert < > >> [email protected] > >> > >wrote: > >> > > >> > > Well, there's currently no notion of runtime dependencies so test > >> > > dependencies is the closest we have. > >> > > > >> > > alex > >> > > > >> > > On Monday, January 17, 2011, John Shahid <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > > Well I'd expect in this instance to add slf4j or commons logging > to > >> the > >> > > > compile dependencies and log4j to the runtime dependencies. I > think > >> it > >> > > makes > >> > > > more sense to include compile dependencies instead of > test.compile. > >> > What > >> > > do > >> > > > you think ? > >> > > > > >> > > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Alex Boisvert < > >> > [email protected] > >> > > >wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> I thought it would be a better default. Test dependencies > usually > >> > > >> include addional dependencies to run the software (i.e., compile > >> > > >> against inteface, run against implementation.) A concrete > example > >> > > >> would be compiling against SLF4J and running against Log4J. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> alex > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Saturday, January 15, 2011, John Shahid <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Hey all, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I came across lines 174-177 in lib/buildr/run.rb > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > after_define(:run => :test) do |project| > >> > > >> > project.run.with project.test.compile.dependencies > >> > > >> > project.run.with project.test.compile.target if > >> > > >> project.test.compile.target > >> > > >> > end > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > My question is why are the dependencies used in compiling the > >> tests > >> > > added > >> > > >> to the run task ? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
