> If it broke, I'll probably spend an hour of frustration before I catch why > my tests are not working as expected. On the other hand, buildr package > test=no vs buildr package build_test=no ... no contest. And I like being > able to export test=no.
I agree 100% that it should remain `buildr package test=no`. It would drive me batty if we changed that. However, I question whether export test=no is really all that useful. Or, more importantly, I question whether `export BUILDR_TEST=no` is really all that inconvenient. To me at least, this looks a lot more representative of what it's doing (setting the TEST property for the BUILDR tool). I don't think there would be any confusion if we had BUILDR_TEST for the envar and test for the invocation form, particularly since one is capitalized while the other is not (as per the Unix convention). > So I just applied probability of it breaking (x pain factor) vs persistent > annoyance of avoiding breakage, and short form won. In my opinion, you're underestimating the pain factor and overestimating the persistent annoyance. That is just my opinion though. Daniel
