commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim O'Brien <tobr...@discursive.com>
Subject RE: [codec] Update dependencies.html with Java req, and more.
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:41:15 GMT
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Tim O'Brien wrote:
> > Codec is integrated with the build.  Just uncomment the report in
> > project.xml.  (But, at least from what I can tell from my own experience
> > and from Maven's JIRA issues - the Clover plugin is somewhat unstable)
> 
> You mean Clover? :)

Yes, last time I added the clover report plugin to the maven build and 
used Clover 1.2, I would get a series of start errors.  Although, looking 
at the JIRA report, Ben Walding mentioned that it was stable on the 4th of 
August.

> 
> > But, I had removed it because there was no good way for up to share a
> > licensed Codec binary with everyone who needed it.  There is a licensed Clover binary
in my home directory on Icarus.  Any
> > other commmitter who wants to run clover on codec can obtain those
> > binaries from ~tobrien.
> 
> Yeah. How to integrate either commercial tools like Clover, or GPL tools
> like JDiff, is something that confuses me at the moment. We could have a
> separate project.xml/project.properties or a build.xml, but I'm not sure
> that would work easily.

It is a touchy situation.  If I have the commercial binary for Clover 1.2 
licensed to Codec, where do I put it?, and  Who can I give it to?  I think 
putting the binaries on Icarus is a good solution, other committers can 
grab the binaries and use them for site generation.

But, who is allowed to use this binary?  We expect contributors to submit
patches with good JUnit tests, why not expect people to submit code with a
good amount of coverage?  This has happened before, a valuable contributor
wants to make a somewhat large change, and they want to use to see how 
much code is covered by the unit tests.

My point being, even though we have some very active, valuebale
contributors, I don't think we're allowed to distribute Clover binaries to
non-committers.

I'll turn the clover report back on, but I think that we should favor free 
when there is a choice.  I'd rather not even hav to deal with the above 
question.  JUnit is free, and I think coverage tools are as important as 
unit tests - but, last time I checked JCoverage didn't work very well and 
was available under one of those annoying GPL/commercial schemes (like 
MySQL).  Quilt is reportedly close to a maven plugin.  We'll see what 
happens with that.

> 
> > Now, here's some philosophy.  Clover is a great tool, but, it isn't free
> > or open source.  I worry that the ASF makes a mistake when it starts to
> > rely on proprietary utilities such as Clover and JIRA.  I'm not sure if a
> > good discussion has been started on the subject.
> 
> I believe in supporting commercial tools which provide open source
> projects with a good deal. If an open source variant with competable
> features [and a usable licence] exists, then it's the better choice.
> 

I think getting into commercial tools reduces the accessibility of the
project for non-committers.  I like Clover, but I'd like it much better if
I knew that some college student interested in working on this project
could download a free version.

A few months ago there was an email war on community@ about licensing 
issues, and, if I remember correctly, there is nothing prohibiting us from 
using GPL, LGPL "tools". 

Tim O'Brien



Mime
View raw message