On Dec 10, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > However, in 3043, the consumer leaves out the classifier from the > dependency specification. Is anyone willing to explain why that bit of > relaxation was considered a good idea? My inclination would be to > change the test to specify the classifier. >
If it's an IT that has been in place for a while then please leave it. Changing existing tests that express behaviour in the field is a very bad idea. Make a new one, and if it needs to express a different behavior because we feel it's wrong then assert that in the range of versions under which that particular test runs. Changing tests to match behaviour, once established to monitor behaviour, undermines the purpose of the tests. Cut/paste is cheap, and you probably have no idea who might be relying on behavior expressed in the form the test is in now even though the change you suggest may appear simple and not much have impact. Once an IT has been created and been used to vet a version of Maven that has shipped that IT should not be changed. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. -- Paul Graham
