You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> on 2008/02/23 18:05:19 UTC
[all] Cobertura...
Are we opposed to using Cobertura coverage reports in Apache Commons
project sites?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] Cobertura...
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Niall Pemberton
<ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM, James Carman
> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>> Are we opposed to using Cobertura coverage reports in Apache Commons
>> project sites?
>
> Its fine to use it as part of a components webseit, but Cobertura
> includes three javascript files that shouldn't be distributed as part
> of a release - so if the site is included in the distro(s) then these
> should be excluded (easily done in the assembly descriptor). We asked
> this recently on legal-discuss - thread is here:
>
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/luukuehijisvoawo
Update on this....looks like the current opinion is now that its fine
to include the GPL javascript files as part of the docs in a distro -
see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-19
Niall
>
> Niall
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] Cobertura...
Posted by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>.
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM, James Carman
>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>> Are we opposed to using Cobertura coverage reports in Apache Commons
>>> project sites?
>>
>> Its fine to use it as part of a components webseit, but Cobertura
>> includes three javascript files that shouldn't be distributed as part
>> of a release - so if the site is included in the distro(s) then these
>> should be excluded (easily done in the assembly descriptor). We asked
>> this recently on legal-discuss - thread is here:
>>
>> http://apache.markmail.org/message/luukuehijisvoawo
>
> Thanks for that link Niall.
>
> I'm going to try to create a patch for Cobertura, which will add a
> command line switch that excludes the three javascript files and any
> references to them in the generated report. Hopefully I can get Joakim
> Erdfelt to apply the patch and push out a release. Unfortunately I'm
> currently unable to check out the sources from the Sourceforge
> subversion repository.
There was already an open issue for it:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1870512&group_id=130558&atid=720015
> After that the Cobertura Maven Plugin will need to be modified to add a
> similar configuration. I'm a committer over at Mojo, where the plugin is
> hosted, so this is not a problem.
>
> I'll keep you posted.
>
>>
>>
>> Niall
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] Cobertura...
Posted by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM, James Carman
> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>> Are we opposed to using Cobertura coverage reports in Apache Commons
>> project sites?
>
> Its fine to use it as part of a components webseit, but Cobertura
> includes three javascript files that shouldn't be distributed as part
> of a release - so if the site is included in the distro(s) then these
> should be excluded (easily done in the assembly descriptor). We asked
> this recently on legal-discuss - thread is here:
>
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/luukuehijisvoawo
Thanks for that link Niall.
I'm going to try to create a patch for Cobertura, which will add a
command line switch that excludes the three javascript files and any
references to them in the generated report. Hopefully I can get Joakim
Erdfelt to apply the patch and push out a release. Unfortunately I'm
currently unable to check out the sources from the Sourceforge
subversion repository.
After that the Cobertura Maven Plugin will need to be modified to add a
similar configuration. I'm a committer over at Mojo, where the plugin is
hosted, so this is not a problem.
I'll keep you posted.
>
>
> Niall
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [all] Cobertura...
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM, James Carman
<ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> Are we opposed to using Cobertura coverage reports in Apache Commons
> project sites?
Its fine to use it as part of a components webseit, but Cobertura
includes three javascript files that shouldn't be distributed as part
of a release - so if the site is included in the distro(s) then these
should be excluded (easily done in the assembly descriptor). We asked
this recently on legal-discuss - thread is here:
http://apache.markmail.org/message/luukuehijisvoawo
Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org