buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Spiewak <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r792325 - /buildr/trunk/doc/testing.textile
Date Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:50:09 GMT
> If it broke, I'll probably spend an hour of frustration before I catch why
> my tests are not working as expected. On the other hand, buildr package
> test=no vs buildr package build_test=no ... no contest.  And I like being
> able to export test=no.

I agree 100% that it should remain `buildr package test=no`.  It would drive
me batty if we changed that.  However, I question whether export test=no is
really all that useful.  Or, more importantly, I question whether `export
BUILDR_TEST=no` is really all that inconvenient.  To me at least, this looks
a lot more representative of what it's doing (setting the TEST property for
the BUILDR tool).  I don't think there would be any confusion if we had
BUILDR_TEST for the envar and test for the invocation form, particularly
since one is capitalized while the other is not (as per the Unix

> So I just applied probability of it breaking (x pain factor) vs persistent
> annoyance of avoiding breakage, and short form won.

In my opinion, you're underestimating the pain factor and overestimating the
persistent annoyance.  That is just my opinion though.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message