On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 21:19 -0700, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 11/17/06, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that if you mark the dependencies optional, you get
compilation errors? That doesn't sound right.
Well, that's exactly what happens.
Found it. Optional is not
On 11/18/06, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be really nice if Maven would report an error if the scope
value is invalid rather than silently ignoring the dependency completely
(as 2.0.4 evidently does). I'll try to check with mvn trunk and request
an enhancement if this
Author: skitching
Date: Fri Nov 17 19:41:32 2006
New Revision: 476429
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=476429
Log:
Add comments about unusual dependency-handling approach.
Modified:
jakarta/commons/proper/logging/trunk/pom.xml
Modified:
On 11/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: skitching
Date: Fri Nov 17 19:41:32 2006
New Revision: 476429
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=476429
Log:
Add comments about unusual dependency-handling approach.
...
if we declare them optional then
+- when
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 20:53 -0700, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 11/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: skitching
Date: Fri Nov 17 19:41:32 2006
New Revision: 476429
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=476429
Log:
Add comments about unusual
On 11/17/06, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that if you mark the dependencies optional, you get
compilation errors? That doesn't sound right.
Well, that's exactly what happens.
Found it. Optional is not a scope, it's a separate element.
Instead of
