If that's the case, can we assume that some tasks are missing where people might expect them to be there?
Anyway, I'm ok with the change, but we should probably do it properly. I'm happy to break compatibility in this case and not include any optional tasks and push them out to the individual plugins that need them and include it in the next release notes as a gotcha. Jason, would pushing the junit task definition into the test plugin help with the ant classloader problems with junit? Cheers, Brett > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 5 January 2004 4:05 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: RE: cvs commit: maven/src/bin forehead.conf > > > Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/01/2004 02:46:15 PM: > > > On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 22:26, Brett Porter wrote: > > > That dependency list looks scary - is it really all needed? > > > > Yes, I agree that list of deps add while we are trying to get > > something called 1.0 out the door is a little out of line. > > Do you realise that that is less (from a task angle) than what was in > ant-optional.jar? > -- > dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting > Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
