That will work, but isn't semantically correct; I think <scope>compile</scope> <optional>true</optional> would be more correct. But then again, I'm just nitpicking, I don't think it makes any real difference.
-g 2009/2/17 Paul Hammant <[email protected]> > I've changed three scopes to 'provided'. It means that they won't cascade > to Maven user's deps transitively. It also blurs the distinction between > 'test' and 'compile'. > Thoughts? > > Regards, > > - Paul > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Grégory Joseph wrote: > > I think they're used by xdoclet/generama, for instance (which in turn > provide abstract testcase for their plugins so they can check generated code > against expected code, and ant tasks to generate some code).These > dependencies (ant and junit) should probably be marked as optional, then. > > Just my 2 unverified cents, > > -g > > 2009/2/17 Robert Scholte <[email protected]> > >> Last time I noticed that the dependencies are missing their scope. >> >> Both junit and jmock should have the test-scope. >> >> It seems there's some lost class in the sourcefolder, which depends on >> junit, namely com.thoughtworks.qdox.junit.APITestCase >> there are no references to this class, so I would nominate it for >> deletion. >> >> And I guess the ant-dependency should be at least 1.5.1 and optional >> But wait a minute... isn't com.thoughtworks.qdox.ant.AbstractQdoxTask just >> as lost? Ok, it has some tests, but that's the only usage I can find. >> another nomination? >> >> regards, >> >> Robert >> >> ------------------------------ >> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN >> Messenger<http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/> >> > > >
