accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Tubbs <ctubb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: If you are wondering why site:site seems to take about a week ...
Date Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:16:19 GMT
That's interesting... because I was under the impression that the reporting
section is simply translated internally to configuration passed to the
maven-site-plugin. If this is not the case, I need to learn some more.
However, if it is the case, then, it seems more natural to not rely on the
correct translation of the reporting section to plugin configuration, and
just configure that plugin explicitly.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you. Were you suggesting ignoring the site build
entirely, as we're not really using it to generate a site, and just using
the various independent reporting tools to generate javadoc artifacts, code
coverage reports for Jenkins, etc., and avoid doing any site building
whatsoever? Because, I've heard that recommendation before also...


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Christopher Tubbs <ctubbsii@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Moving to the natural Maven 3 usage of maven-site-plugin as a normal
> build
> > plugin, with configuration for reporting, instead of dealing with the
> > massive "reporting" section that gets mapped to the maven-site-plugin,
> may
> > also help.
>
>
> Just the opposite. As a member of the Maven PMC, I can sadly report
> that we currently recommend *against* that. It was not thought
> through, it doesn't work very well, and in particular it makes this
> problem worse.
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 For moving cobertura to its own profile, add something saying so to
> the
> >> readme/website, and let people decide when they want to activate it.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/18/2012 05:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> >>
> >>> There's a very longstanding bug/confusion in Maven that results from
> >>> reporting plugins that fork executions. That's not the same thing as
> >>> forking a jvm, it's an internal maven business where a plugin says,
> >>> 'whoops, to run me you have to make a whole new maven and run all this
> >>> other stuff first'.
> >>>
> >>> The cobertura plugin does this. So does Javadoc in some really
> irritating
> >>> cases.
> >>>
> >>> If folks would like a faster site build, I'd suggest moving cobertura
> >>> to a profile.
> >>>
> >>> If the current 'go for coffee' situation doesn't bother anyone too
> >>> much, we can leave it alone.
> >>>
> >>
>

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