On 5/22/13 9:52 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > [parent] version 29 replaces Cobertura with Jacoco, the main reasoning from > the folks over at [math] being that Jacoco is very fast compared to > Cobertura. In the case of [math] it's hours vs. minutes. > > The problem is that Jacoco produces bogus results as I recently emailed > about the [io] component. The large portion of the code is reported with 0% > coverage which is completely wrong. This is apparently a known issue due to > the Jacoco use of 'probes' to analyze code which is not compatible with the > use of exceptions. > > If you get the latest from [io] and edit the POM to enable JaCoC, you can > compare both reports in the generated site with 'mvn clean site'. > > Fast and bogus is not better than slow and right. > > I propose we switch [parent] back to Cobertura until a better alternative > is proposed. [math] can decide if it can live with the fast and bad results > provided by Jacoco.
Maybe broken-record-ish, but I really, really think there should be *nothing* forced by the parent here - i.e., let the individual components decide which, if either one, to use. Phil > > Gary > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
