Re: [Eclemma-jacoco-dev] Final preparations for release 0.5.3
Brought to you by:
mtnminds
|
From: Evgeny M. <man...@gm...> - 2011-07-03 12:52:56
|
Hi Marc, See my comments below : On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 16:32, Marc R. Hoffmann <hof...@mo...>wrote: > Hi Evgeny, > > I just run the Maven build locally and have to say that I'm absolutely > impressed! From my point of view the Maven build should become the > reference from now on. > > Therefore concerning 1) we should fix it to produce a proper result for > the Maven build. > Ok - I'll do it. > Concerning 2) Since my machine was the only one to to create build I > made the performance figures part of the build to see the figures evolve > over time. I understand that this doesn't make sense any more when we > run the build on different machines. So we can remove the link from > documentation (and also the execution during build). I will find some > solution for me to run it locally and keep the figures over time. > Ok - I'll remove it. But in fact I would prefer if we will find a way to stabilize performance testing and a way to keep figures over time, so to make it usable by everybody. But I agree that this is not blocker for now and can wait. > Two remarks related to the release: > > Can you try to publish a snapshot build to maven and also to SF > (download and website)? As soon as we switch to Maven this stream should > also be established. > > When you do the release: Please add a new section in the changes.html > first. > Sure. My steps will be : 1. Finish documentation 2. Publish latest snapshot version into both locations - SF and Maven repository 3. Stage a Release 4. Verify staged version 5. Release into both locations - SF and Maven repository I will notify you, guys, on phases 2 and 4, so you can also participate in verification process ;) Many thanks for this great work! > > Cheers, > -marc > > > On 02.07.11 13:38, Evgeny Mandrikov wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > I'd like to start release of JaCoCo 0.5.3 with publishing to Maven > > repository. But before doing so documentation must be updated and this > > is exactly what I'm doing now, but there is two issues and I need an > > advice : > > > > 1. Current Maven build behaves like Ant build - e.g. documentation > > contains qualified versions of libraries, but this is not always > > correct in case of jacoco-maven-plugin. E.g. current deployed > > documentation ( > > http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/trunk/doc/maven.html ) mentions > > jacoco-maven-plugin version "0.5.3.20110621172127" , but it should > > mention "0.5.3-SNAPSHOT" in case of unreleased version and > > qualified version in case of released. Well, this can be simply > > solved by replacing "@qualified.bundle.version@" on > > "@project.version@" in documentation for jacoco-maven-plugin. > > But in this case Ant build wouldn't behave as Maven build > > anymore. And in this case our documentation will always contain > > reference on "SNAPSHOT" version, because we deploy documentation > > from trunk. So my suggestion is to remove substitution on > > jacoco-maven-plugin page and to have several sections - how to use > > snapshot version of plugin and how to use released version of > plugin. > > 2. Maven build does not contain results of performance tests in > > documentation ( > > http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/trunk/test/performance.txt ). And > > here's why : I've played with this tests. And from my point of > > view they completely useless, at least in documentation. Several > > executions of such tests in same environment will give us > > different results, so they are not stable. Moreover - results > > completely differ if I will make several executions using one JVM, > > or using different. So from developer point of view they useless, > > because they are not stable and can't provide comparison with > > previous release (to find degradations). And from user point of > > view they useless, because as a user I would expect not a generic > > numbers, but a real comparison with other coverage engines ( e.g. > > something like > > > http://www.sonarsource.org/pick-your-code-coverage-tool-in-sonar-2-2/ ). > > So my suggestion Is to remove results of performance tests from > > documentation, at least for the moment. > > > > So WDYT? > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Evgeny Mandrikov aka Godin <http://godin.net.ru> > > http://twitter.com/_godin_ > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 > _______________________________________________ > eclemma-jacoco-dev mailing list > ecl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclemma-jacoco-dev > -- Best regards, Evgeny Mandrikov aka Godin <http://godin.net.ru> http://twitter.com/_godin_ |