Re: [Eclemma-jacoco-dev] Final preparations for release 0.5.3

[Evgeny M. <man...@gm...>]

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_