On 21/06/07, Stuart McCulloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21/06/07, Stuart McCulloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 21/06/07, David Leangen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > afaik it's not a problem with the infrastructure, it's whether the > > > > person > > > > who put in the change that broke the build notices the bamboo failure > > > > and acts on it... > > > > > > Ok... so the next question should be: how do we get (force?) committers > > > to notice whether or not the build passes on bamboo? > > > > > > I think this is a fundamental quality problem that needs to be > > > addressed... Should be fairly easy to fix. :-) > > > > > > > indeed - the pax-wicket build was broken by edward's recent changes: > > > > http://ci.ops4j.org/bamboo/browse/PAXWICKET-DEFAULT-15 > > > > which somehow dropped the required junit / mock test dependencies > > part of the problem seems to be that the bamboo server is still running > maven 2.0.4, while most developers are on 2.0.6 ... just so happens in > this case the wicket build fails with 2.0.4 but passes with 2.0.6
now fixed - problem was due to a bug in maven's dependency logic. the wicket deps excluded junit from the dependency graph - which unfortunately seemed to also exclude the explicit junit dependency! solution was to move the junit dependency below the wicket deps. > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > general mailing list > > > general@lists.ops4j.org > > > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, Stuart > > > > > -- > Cheers, Stuart > -- Cheers, Stuart _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
