On 12 May 2013 21:56, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 11/05/2013 23:25, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>> Le 11/05/2013 15:45, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 11 May 2013 13:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe w
Le 11/05/2013 23:25, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> Le 11/05/2013 15:45, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 May 2013 13:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe >>> wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> Le 09/05/2013
On May 12, 2013, at 8:01, sebb wrote:
> On 11 May 2013 14:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 May 2013 13:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe >>> wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> Le 09/05/2013 20:03,
On 11 May 2013 14:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 11 May 2013 13:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe > >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Sebb,
>> >>
>> >> Le 09/05/2013 20:03, sebb a écrit :
>> >> > On 9 May 2013 18:28, L
Le 11/05/2013 15:45, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:02 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 11 May 2013 13:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe >> wrote:
>>>
Hi Sebb,
Le 09/05/2013 20:03, sebb a écrit :
> On 9 May 2013 18:28, Luc Ma
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:02 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 May 2013 13:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Sebb,
> >>
> >> Le 09/05/2013 20:03, sebb a écrit :
> >> > On 9 May 2013 18:28, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> L
On 11 May 2013 13:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>
>> Hi Sebb,
>>
>> Le 09/05/2013 20:03, sebb a écrit :
>> > On 9 May 2013 18:28, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Le 08/05/2013 22:46, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> Le 09/05/2013 20:03, sebb a écrit :
> > On 9 May 2013 18:28, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Le 08/05/2013 22:46, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gary Gregory a écrit :
> >>>
> On Wed, May 8, 20
Hi Sebb,
Le 09/05/2013 20:03, sebb a écrit :
> On 9 May 2013 18:28, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Le 08/05/2013 22:46, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary Gregory a écrit :
>>>
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> In the Maven output I see:
>
On 9 May 2013 18:28, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Le 08/05/2013 22:46, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary Gregory a écrit :
>>
>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Gary Gregory
>>> wrote:
>>>
In the Maven output I see:
[INFO] Skipping JaCoCo execution due to missing exe
Hi all,
Le 08/05/2013 22:46, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>
>
>
> Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Gary Gregory
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the Maven output I see:
>>>
>>> [INFO] Skipping JaCoCo execution due to missing execution data file
>>>
>>
>> Which I from running "mvn cl
Gary Gregory a écrit :
>On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Gary Gregory
>wrote:
>
>> In the Maven output I see:
>>
>> [INFO] Skipping JaCoCo execution due to missing execution data file
>>
>
>Which I from running "mvn clean site".
Perhaps should you try "mvn clean test site"?
I did not run cle
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> In the Maven output I see:
>
> [INFO] Skipping JaCoCo execution due to missing execution data file
>
Which I from running "mvn clean site".
Gary
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary Gregor
In the Maven output I see:
[INFO] Skipping JaCoCo execution due to missing execution data file
Gary
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>
>
>
> Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
> >On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Luc Maisonobe
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Le 08/05/2013 21:11, Gary Gregory a é
Gary Gregory a écrit :
>On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Luc Maisonobe
>wrote:
>
>> Le 08/05/2013 21:11, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>> > I updated my local commons-io to 29-SNAPSHOT and I do not see a
>coverage
>> > report.
>> >
>> > How is that fixed?
>>
>> Well, I did not have to do anything for
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 08/05/2013 21:11, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> > I updated my local commons-io to 29-SNAPSHOT and I do not see a coverage
> > report.
> >
> > How is that fixed?
>
> Well, I did not have to do anything for [math]. Did you install the
> snapshot
Le 08/05/2013 21:58, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> Le 08/05/2013 21:11, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>> I updated my local commons-io to 29-SNAPSHOT and I do not see a coverage
>> report.
>>
>> How is that fixed?
>
> Well, I did not have to do anything for [math]. Did you install the
> snapshot locally with
Le 08/05/2013 21:11, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> I updated my local commons-io to 29-SNAPSHOT and I do not see a coverage
> report.
>
> How is that fixed?
Well, I did not have to do anything for [math]. Did you install the
snapshot locally with "mvn install"? Don't you have the skipReports
property
I updated my local commons-io to 29-SNAPSHOT and I do not see a coverage
report.
How is that fixed?
Gary
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, luc wrote:
> Le 2013-04-05 00:10, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> CP 28 moved Cobertura to a profile called
Hi all,
Le 05/04/2013 22:49, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/13 1:03 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> CP 28 moved Cobertura to a profile called "reporting".
>>>
>>> The profile was activated by default, but could be disabled by using
>>>
>>> -DskipRepor
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 4/4/13 1:03 PM, sebb wrote:
> > CP 28 moved Cobertura to a profile called "reporting".
> >
> > The profile was activated by default, but could be disabled by using
> >
> > -DskipReports=true
> > or
> > -P!reporting
> >
> > IIRC, the idea was
On 4/4/13 1:03 PM, sebb wrote:
> CP 28 moved Cobertura to a profile called "reporting".
>
> The profile was activated by default, but could be disabled by using
>
> -DskipReports=true
> or
> -P!reporting
>
> IIRC, the idea was to move expensive (long-running) reports to a profile
> that could be di
Le 2013-04-05 00:10, Gary Gregory a écrit :
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM, sebb wrote:
CP 28 moved Cobertura to a profile called "reporting".
The profile was activated by default, but could be disabled by using
-DskipReports=true
or
-P!reporting
IIRC, the idea was to move expensive (long-r
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM, sebb wrote:
> CP 28 moved Cobertura to a profile called "reporting".
>
> The profile was activated by default, but could be disabled by using
>
> -DskipReports=true
> or
> -P!reporting
>
> IIRC, the idea was to move expensive (long-running) reports to a profile
> t
Thank you for working on this.
The original proposal was to replace Cobertura with something else. I
asked that the sub projects have an option to use whatever reporting
tool they want. So, it would be fine if some other reporting tool was
the default as long as sub projects can use something
I recommend changing code coverage to jacoco with a skip.jacoco property.
[see
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201303.mbox/%3CCD7CB15
7.23020%25charles_honton%40intuit.com%3E for reasons]
Regards,
chas
On 4/4/13 1:03 PM, "sebb" wrote:
>CP 28 moved Cobertura to a profile c
CP 28 moved Cobertura to a profile called "reporting".
The profile was activated by default, but could be disabled by using
-DskipReports=true
or
-P!reporting
IIRC, the idea was to move expensive (long-running) reports to a profile
that could be disabled if necessary.
However Cobertura causes p
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Niall Pemberton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM, James Carman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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,
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 javascri
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 5:05 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Are we opposed to using Cobertura coverage reports in Apache Commons
project sites?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
32 matches
Mail list logo