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 <ol...@apache.org> 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 in > > 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? Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
