commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: ETA SvnPubSub site migration
Date Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:35:54 GMT
On 1/9/13 7:14 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> What about having a reporting profile (enabled per default).
> And using -DskipReports to not generated cobertura, findbugs etc..
> Perso I like this idea as currently when you want to test a typo fix
> in a .apt or .xdoc it's very long to generate the site only for a typo
> fix in documentation.

Agreed.  Back in the very old m1 days, you could do something like
"maven xdoc" to just gen the xdoc-based html.  Is there a m2 way to
do this?

> 2013/1/9 Gilles Sadowski <>:
>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 08:37:33AM -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
>>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:25:45AM -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>> IMO code coverage should be part of the standard documentation for a
>>>>> component.  Looking at code coverage helps establish or shake my
>>>>> confidence in a component. It should definitively be part of ones
>>>>> development checklist, I like to have the best code coverage for any
>>>>> new code that I check in.
>>>>> Gary
>>>>> On Jan 9, 2013, at 5:16, Olivier Lamy <> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>>> I have started importing some content for sub projects (exec,
>>>>>> collections). I will try to do more later.
>>>>>> Where is the place to document that ?
>>>>>> Note: currently some content is imported which could be removed (I
>>>>>> think about cobertura for modules which use sonar).
>>>>>> What is the status about moving cobertura to a dedicated profile
>>>>>> parent pom ?
>>>>>> Can I move it to a reporting profile in parent pom ?
>>>> For [Math] it would be much better (since AFAIK nobody came up with a way
>>>> to
>>>> disable Cobertura on a per-component basis).
>>>> From what I infer from looking at the Sonar report page, we could have the
>>>> best of all worlds if every Commons project were registered indepently in
>>>> Sonar. Currently, there is one "Commons Proper Aggregator Project
>>>> 1.0-SNAPSHOT" (which does not represent the actual situation that the
>>>> components are independent from each other). However, it seems that with
>>>> several projects registered, it could be possible to compare two versions
>>>> of the same project, thereby providing complete information on the
>>>> evolution
>>>> of the code. Am I wrong?
>>> Sonar has no value for local development though (before you commit). I need
>>> the reports to run locally when, for example, I am improving code coverage,
>>> fixing FindBugs, PMD, and Checkstyle issues.
>> Nothing will prevent you to run Cobertura by calling the new profile
>> explicitly. We've explained that Cobertura is a PITA for Commons Math
>> developers.
>> Thanks,
>> Gilles
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message