You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to community@apache.org by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> on 2009/12/23 20:56:01 UTC
Fwd: Returned post for committers@apache.org
Hi All:
[I am replying here to message (below) posted on committers@a.o on
12/20/2009 03:17 by Michael McCandless]
As an open source community, I feel we should eat our own open source
philosophy dog food and use open source software whenever possible. I've
used Cobertura for a while now on various Commons projects and at work
and its reports are just as useful and pretty as Clover. I also believe
that each project community is free to do what it feels serves it best.
At this time, though, I wonder what Clover offer that is so much better
than Cobertura to merit put aside what I feel is an important
philosophical point.
What we do at Apache for this type of issue is very important IMO when
we think about the image and expertise that we project. We are a
technical community and people look to our choices as implicit guidance
if not endorsement. When we pick a commercial product like Clover over
an open source solution (like Cobertura), I feel we are telling the
world that there is no one in the open source space that could serve our
need and that we had to turn to a commercial product. That fact that we
have a free license is besides the point.
My 2c,
Gary
----------------------------------------------------
On 12/20/2009 03:17, Michael McCandless wrote:
Hi all,
Atlassian has generously donated a site license to Apache for Clover
2.6, to test code coverage for any source code under org.apache.
We've checked the license in here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-licenses/clover/2.6.x/
In Atlassian's words: The license is available to anyone working on
the org.apache.* be it in IDEA/Eclipse/Ant/Maven locally, or on a
central build server. Since the license will only instrument and
report coverage on org.apache packages, please mention that it is fine
to commit this license to each project if it makes running builds
easier. ie just check out the project and run with Clover, without the
need for the extra step of locating and installing the clover license.
Uwe Schindler has worked with Atlassian to upgrade Lucene's nightly
build to use Clover 2.6 and the resulting report is great, eg:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Lucene-trunk/lastSuccessfulBuild/clover-report
Feel free to fold into your build, use Clover during development, etc.
Mike
RE: Returned post for committers@apache.org
Posted by "Gav..." <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hyandell@gmail.com [mailto:hyandell@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Henri
> Yandell
> Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2010 3:27 PM
> To: community@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Returned post for committers@apache.org
>
(why wasn't an Archiva set up)
more to the point, it seems people don't know what we run these days.
(see below)
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Talking about our own dogfood, it probably makes a better argument
> > Nexus (used in the ASF) vs Archiva (Apache project)
> >
Actually, we run both:
http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/browse
Gav...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Returned post for committers@apache.org
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Nexus/Archiva one still also falls into the GPL vs Permissive camp
though. A better one is Proprietary Sun Java vs Harmony.
Generally the answer on 'internal' tools, is that volunteer and merit
is more important than product dogfooding (why wasn't an Archiva set
up?). On 'external' products (i.e. why doesn't Tomcat ship with
Harmony), we recognize that decoupling and independence are both
architecturally valuable and helps us socially (Tomcat don't have to
wait on Harmony to release).
Cobertura vs Clover exposes, I think, a 3rd axis. Pragmatism. Clover
was definitely the better product when I looked many years back, I
suspect it still is. Also a 4th: Choice. No reason why both can't be
used.
Hen
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> Talking about our own dogfood, it probably makes a better argument
> Nexus (used in the ASF) vs Archiva (Apache project)
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I question the labeling of Cobertura as our dogfood and Clover as not
>> our dogfood.
>>
>> Which is 'our dogfood', the GPL product or the proprietary product
>> built on top of permissively licensed Open Source (not that I know if
>> Clover is like this; but I've heard the same argument against JIRA)?
>>
>> Do we support the "Open Source movement", whatever that might be
>> described as today, or our users?
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi All:
>>>
>>> [I am replying here to message (below) posted on committers@a.o on
>>> 12/20/2009 03:17 by Michael McCandless]
>>>
>>> As an open source community, I feel we should eat our own open source
>>> philosophy dog food and use open source software whenever possible. I've
>>> used Cobertura for a while now on various Commons projects and at work and
>>> its reports are just as useful and pretty as Clover. I also believe that
>>> each project community is free to do what it feels serves it best.
>>>
>>> At this time, though, I wonder what Clover offer that is so much better than
>>> Cobertura to merit put aside what I feel is an important philosophical
>>> point.
>>>
>>> What we do at Apache for this type of issue is very important IMO when we
>>> think about the image and expertise that we project. We are a technical
>>> community and people look to our choices as implicit guidance if not
>>> endorsement. When we pick a commercial product like Clover over an open
>>> source solution (like Cobertura), I feel we are telling the world that there
>>> is no one in the open source space that could serve our need and that we had
>>> to turn to a commercial product. That fact that we have a free license is
>>> besides the point.
>>>
>>> My 2c,
>>> Gary
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>> On 12/20/2009 03:17, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Atlassian has generously donated a site license to Apache for Clover
>>> 2.6, to test code coverage for any source code under org.apache.
>>>
>>> We've checked the license in here:
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-licenses/clover/2.6.x/
>>>
>>> In Atlassian's words: The license is available to anyone working on
>>> the org.apache.* be it in IDEA/Eclipse/Ant/Maven locally, or on a
>>> central build server. Since the license will only instrument and
>>> report coverage on org.apache packages, please mention that it is fine
>>> to commit this license to each project if it makes running builds
>>> easier. ie just check out the project and run with Clover, without the
>>> need for the extra step of locating and installing the clover license.
>>>
>>> Uwe Schindler has worked with Atlassian to upgrade Lucene's nightly
>>> build to use Clover 2.6 and the resulting report is great, eg:
>>>
>>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Lucene-trunk/lastSuccessfulBuild/clover-report
>>>
>>> Feel free to fold into your build, use Clover during development, etc.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Returned post for committers@apache.org
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
Talking about our own dogfood, it probably makes a better argument
Nexus (used in the ASF) vs Archiva (Apache project)
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I question the labeling of Cobertura as our dogfood and Clover as not
> our dogfood.
>
> Which is 'our dogfood', the GPL product or the proprietary product
> built on top of permissively licensed Open Source (not that I know if
> Clover is like this; but I've heard the same argument against JIRA)?
>
> Do we support the "Open Source movement", whatever that might be
> described as today, or our users?
>
> Hen
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi All:
>>
>> [I am replying here to message (below) posted on committers@a.o on
>> 12/20/2009 03:17 by Michael McCandless]
>>
>> As an open source community, I feel we should eat our own open source
>> philosophy dog food and use open source software whenever possible. I've
>> used Cobertura for a while now on various Commons projects and at work and
>> its reports are just as useful and pretty as Clover. I also believe that
>> each project community is free to do what it feels serves it best.
>>
>> At this time, though, I wonder what Clover offer that is so much better than
>> Cobertura to merit put aside what I feel is an important philosophical
>> point.
>>
>> What we do at Apache for this type of issue is very important IMO when we
>> think about the image and expertise that we project. We are a technical
>> community and people look to our choices as implicit guidance if not
>> endorsement. When we pick a commercial product like Clover over an open
>> source solution (like Cobertura), I feel we are telling the world that there
>> is no one in the open source space that could serve our need and that we had
>> to turn to a commercial product. That fact that we have a free license is
>> besides the point.
>>
>> My 2c,
>> Gary
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> On 12/20/2009 03:17, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Atlassian has generously donated a site license to Apache for Clover
>> 2.6, to test code coverage for any source code under org.apache.
>>
>> We've checked the license in here:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-licenses/clover/2.6.x/
>>
>> In Atlassian's words: The license is available to anyone working on
>> the org.apache.* be it in IDEA/Eclipse/Ant/Maven locally, or on a
>> central build server. Since the license will only instrument and
>> report coverage on org.apache packages, please mention that it is fine
>> to commit this license to each project if it makes running builds
>> easier. ie just check out the project and run with Clover, without the
>> need for the extra step of locating and installing the clover license.
>>
>> Uwe Schindler has worked with Atlassian to upgrade Lucene's nightly
>> build to use Clover 2.6 and the resulting report is great, eg:
>>
>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Lucene-trunk/lastSuccessfulBuild/clover-report
>>
>> Feel free to fold into your build, use Clover during development, etc.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Returned post for committers@apache.org
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
I question the labeling of Cobertura as our dogfood and Clover as not
our dogfood.
Which is 'our dogfood', the GPL product or the proprietary product
built on top of permissively licensed Open Source (not that I know if
Clover is like this; but I've heard the same argument against JIRA)?
Do we support the "Open Source movement", whatever that might be
described as today, or our users?
Hen
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> [I am replying here to message (below) posted on committers@a.o on
> 12/20/2009 03:17 by Michael McCandless]
>
> As an open source community, I feel we should eat our own open source
> philosophy dog food and use open source software whenever possible. I've
> used Cobertura for a while now on various Commons projects and at work and
> its reports are just as useful and pretty as Clover. I also believe that
> each project community is free to do what it feels serves it best.
>
> At this time, though, I wonder what Clover offer that is so much better than
> Cobertura to merit put aside what I feel is an important philosophical
> point.
>
> What we do at Apache for this type of issue is very important IMO when we
> think about the image and expertise that we project. We are a technical
> community and people look to our choices as implicit guidance if not
> endorsement. When we pick a commercial product like Clover over an open
> source solution (like Cobertura), I feel we are telling the world that there
> is no one in the open source space that could serve our need and that we had
> to turn to a commercial product. That fact that we have a free license is
> besides the point.
>
> My 2c,
> Gary
> ----------------------------------------------------
> On 12/20/2009 03:17, Michael McCandless wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Atlassian has generously donated a site license to Apache for Clover
> 2.6, to test code coverage for any source code under org.apache.
>
> We've checked the license in here:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-licenses/clover/2.6.x/
>
> In Atlassian's words: The license is available to anyone working on
> the org.apache.* be it in IDEA/Eclipse/Ant/Maven locally, or on a
> central build server. Since the license will only instrument and
> report coverage on org.apache packages, please mention that it is fine
> to commit this license to each project if it makes running builds
> easier. ie just check out the project and run with Clover, without the
> need for the extra step of locating and installing the clover license.
>
> Uwe Schindler has worked with Atlassian to upgrade Lucene's nightly
> build to use Clover 2.6 and the resulting report is great, eg:
>
> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Lucene-trunk/lastSuccessfulBuild/clover-report
>
> Feel free to fold into your build, use Clover during development, etc.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Returned post for committers@apache.org
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
My personal experience is that Cobertura doesn't provide the same level of statistics, doesn't break down the coverage into as many categories (lines & branches vs stmts, branches, classes and methods) and can be inaccurate. For example, I've had cobertura report that a line with nothing but a '{' on it wasn't covered even though the line before and the lines inside the block were covered. This screws up the code coverage percentages. I don't know how well this will come through, but here is an example from Commons VFS.
1. The first try isn't being counted at all.
2. The second try is counted but has a value of 0 even though the method inside the block is called 132 times.
695
try
696
{
697 132
super.onClose();
698
}
699
finally
700
{
701 0
try
702
{
703 132
endOutput();
704
}
705 0
catch (Exception e)
706
{
707 0
throw new FileSystemException("vfs.provider/close-outstr.error", file, e);
708 132
}
709
}
710 132
}
Ralph
On Dec 23, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> [I am replying here to message (below) posted on committers@a.o on 12/20/2009 03:17 by Michael McCandless]
>
> As an open source community, I feel we should eat our own open source philosophy dog food and use open source software whenever possible. I've used Cobertura for a while now on various Commons projects and at work and its reports are just as useful and pretty as Clover. I also believe that each project community is free to do what it feels serves it best.
>
> At this time, though, I wonder what Clover offer that is so much better than Cobertura to merit put aside what I feel is an important philosophical point.
>
> What we do at Apache for this type of issue is very important IMO when we think about the image and expertise that we project. We are a technical community and people look to our choices as implicit guidance if not endorsement. When we pick a commercial product like Clover over an open source solution (like Cobertura), I feel we are telling the world that there is no one in the open source space that could serve our need and that we had to turn to a commercial product. That fact that we have a free license is besides the point.
>
> My 2c,
> Gary
> ----------------------------------------------------
> On 12/20/2009 03:17, Michael McCandless wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Atlassian has generously donated a site license to Apache for Clover
> 2.6, to test code coverage for any source code under org.apache.
>
> We've checked the license in here:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-licenses/clover/2.6.x/
>
> In Atlassian's words: The license is available to anyone working on
> the org.apache.* be it in IDEA/Eclipse/Ant/Maven locally, or on a
> central build server. Since the license will only instrument and
> report coverage on org.apache packages, please mention that it is fine
> to commit this license to each project if it makes running builds
> easier. ie just check out the project and run with Clover, without the
> need for the extra step of locating and installing the clover license.
>
> Uwe Schindler has worked with Atlassian to upgrade Lucene's nightly
> build to use Clover 2.6 and the resulting report is great, eg:
>
> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Lucene-trunk/lastSuccessfulBuild/clover-report
>
> Feel free to fold into your build, use Clover during development, etc.
>
> Mike
>
>
> <ForwardedMessage.eml>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Returned post for committers@apache.org
Posted by "Brian E. Fox" <br...@infinity.nu>.
+1
--Brian (mobile)
On Dec 28, 2009, at 3:38 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Gary Gregory
> <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As an open source community, I feel we should eat our own open source
>> philosophy dog food and use open source software whenever possible.
>
> Although I personally agree with you, I also think that ASF should
> stay out of the philosophy arena as long as possible. AFAIK,
> Corbertura and Emma are also used at ASF, so we shouldn't see it as an
> 'endorsement', but simply a "Use it if you like..." for the ASF
> projects.
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Returned post for committers@apache.org
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As an open source community, I feel we should eat our own open source
> philosophy dog food and use open source software whenever possible.
Although I personally agree with you, I also think that ASF should
stay out of the philosophy arena as long as possible. AFAIK,
Corbertura and Emma are also used at ASF, so we shouldn't see it as an
'endorsement', but simply a "Use it if you like..." for the ASF
projects.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org