2009/5/11 Brian Fox <[email protected]>: > At face value the logic seems to make sense, but I haven't thought through > all the ramifications. I thought Mark Hobson mentioned some cases where the > opposite was desired. At this point your best bet is to prepare a proposal > on http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/User+Proposals with an > associated Jira and then start building some consensus around the changes. > > Work in this area for 3.x is nearing so now's a good time to create the > proposal.
I'm all in favour of local test scope not overriding transitive compile scope. I've just this second been bitten by this again and had to mangle the pom to workaround it. Local dependencies shouldn't have any higher precedence that transitive ones; if you want to force a dependency's version and/or scope, then dependency management should be used for this purpose. The compile/test runtime/provided scope separation sounds interesting but I'd need some time to think it through. Let's at least get this first issue in JIRA before it gets lost, has anything been raised? Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
