I'll submit a PR in these couple of days, if it waits a little bit. 2017-01-11 0:54 GMT+02:00 Christian Schulte <c...@schulte.it>:
> Am 01/10/17 um 09:30 schrieb Anton Tanasenko: > > 3.3.9 (in 5805) introduced an additional syntax for specifying lifecycle > > goals as > > '<lifecyclePhases><..><mojos><mojo><goal/><configuration/>< > dependencies/></mojo</mojos</...></lifecyclePhases>' > > in addition to '<phases><...>[goals as text]</...></phases>', but due to > > implementation, it was also supported using the 'phases' parent node and > > the test was using that one as well. > > This broke binary compatibility, which is fixed in 5958, but as a > > side-effect, 'phases' node can no longer be used for the new syntax. > > > > If strictly following the rules that you brought up, the test for 5805 > > should really be duplicated and changed to use the new syntax starting > > 3.5.0, but to be honest, I'm not sure if it's really worth it. > > Adding/updating ITs without review has led to ITs testing > incorrect/unexpected behaviour which is hard to change. Having the old > test unchanged with an upper bound and a new test in paralle testing the > expected/new/correct behaviour helps to track what behaviour got > invalidated by what release. It's not that much extra work since you can > copy the old test over to a new class and just need to change some bits > to make it fit. Please either create a pull request or attach a patch in > JIRA. When it comes to the core IT repository, things cannot be changed > without discussion. In fact, this is what required to reset various > branches. I'll add a link to this thread in the commit message so that > everyone kicking in months later can read about why things are the way > the are. > > Regards, > -- > Christian > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > -- Regards, Anton.
