Unlock opensaml-parent ?

[Ian Young]

> On 23 Oct 2015, at 19:05, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:
> 
> On 10/23/15, 1:58 PM, "dev on behalf of Ian Young" <dev-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of ian at iay.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> When we're testing that new version of the IdP, we're testing it against the old version of OpenSAML but with the new dependencies introduced by the later parent POM. Isn't that enough?
> 
> I rarely commit to any public statements involving the adequacy of my testing.
> 
> The IdP unit and integration tests would be running with the new, but the OpenSAML tests would be running with the old one. Our real world smoke tests would have the mix, but they're only so thorough.

OK, accepted.

So would being able to run the OpenSAML tests with the new dependencies even if they were compiled with the old ones improve the situation?

> I'm just saying that *is* a benefit to that consistency. Maybe not enough of one, but it's not zero.

I didn't say there was no benefit, I wanted someone to lay out what it was. Now we can figure out whether it's worth the trouble, or if there might be another way to address the problem we're trying to solve.

    -- Ian




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3563 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/dev/attachments/20151023/64b77436/attachment.p7s>