On 12/19/12 6:19 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Hello. > > The situation with "Cobertura" is fairly annoying, perhaps particularly so > for Commons Math because of the size of the code base (and thus the fairly > large number of unit tests). > > As it just happened, a few minor problems have now delayed the release by > several days because I have to wait about 4 hours for the site generation > to complete (on a _fast_ machine). > Hence the request to remove Cobertura from the "site" target, or at least > from the "site:stage-deploy" step, so that a new vote can take place as soon > as a problem is fixed. > [I would even argue that it is not that useful to include Cobertura in the > release process because the amount of code coverage is not acted upon (i.e. > low coverage would not block a release IIUC).] > > Do you agree?
+1 > If so, can we change that for Commons Math only, or should this be done at > the "parent" level? Is is just a matter of adding > <cobertura.skip>true</cobertura.skip> > in a new profile? This is an argument that we have from time to time. IMO the parent should contain a minimal set of plugins and component POMs should explicitly include the ones they want. I would be +1 for dropping Coberta from the parent pom. Phil > > > Regards, > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
