cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephan Michels <step...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [GUMP] Build Failure - cocoon-block-fop
Date Wed, 09 Apr 2003 14:46:07 GMT


On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> >>>
> >>>3 - Finally there is super-strict mode, where a project doesn't want to
> >>>give it's jar if not all tests pass. Not usually recomended.
> >>
> >>I'm for 3 ;-) That's reason why it called XP, and it forces you to
> >>keep the testcases uptodate.
> >
> > Wait. You should keep an eye on what gump tries to do.
> >
> > If you fail because you didn't pass the tests, the projects that depend
> > on you will not be run, meaning that another day will pass before they
> > know if something wrong happened to them.
> >
> > I'd go for 2 since it's the balance between nagging in case something
> > bad happens (this is what XP is about!) and not stopping others to be
> > able to get nagged.
>
> Go for 3.
>
> A <depend> element in a gump project descriptor does *not* mean that the
> build was successful.  It merely means that all the jars declared in the
> descriptor are present after the build was run.
>
> So... you can structure the ant targets so that you produce the jars,
> then run the tests.  If the jars are produced and the tests fail, then
> you will get nagged and projects which depend on you will get built.

Okay, I have now included the test targets. Hopefully don't break
this thing :) We will see...

Stephan.

BTW, what's the status of the double nagging of xml-fop? Is there a
consensus?


Mime
View raw message