Your rant makes sense Stephen and I'm already glad I asked :-) I honestly have never been in a development environment where rebuilding an artifact was a problem. But ok, I see the idea of keeping the build. But if everything is the same, except for property files, what's the problem with rebuilding? Ok, the SHA1 and MD5 are indeed different after a rebuild, but I never thought that kind of thing to be a source of possible failures. Although I have to admit that I'm far from a specialst on that matter. Perhaps someone or something should 'taint' me ? Though that sounds more awkward than intended ^^
I have yet to find a project where rebuilding an artifact is considered a problem. Usually the idea of the testing is a combination of test frameworks applied on the codebase, not the release. Hence the idea of having unit tests as part of the "success vs. fail" of a build. Then a lot of project managers would want me to rebuild the artifact on a machine with the same kind of environment as the target machine. Which is why some of my clients used Hudson, to be able to do just that and choose the properties, with a profile. Quality should always be a "thing", imho. But at this point I don't really see a reason why rebuilding an artifact would break the quality, but of course as I said, I'm not a specialist. I've been a pro developer for 3 years . -- View this message in context: http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/Reasonable-use-of-profiles-tp3300650p3304312.html Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
