On 5/19/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to start a discussion about trying to unify which Maven reports should be used for each commons component.
Source health + checkstyle (code formatting) + jdepend (quality metrics) + pmd/cpd (bugs, code duplication, coding standards) + tasklist (to do list) - findbugs (same as pmd?) - simian (same as cpd)
Those reports are interesting to developers while developing code. Other than that, who cares? I've never chosen one lib over another because of the source code style or any other of those reports.
Tests + cobertura (test coverage) + junit (test reports) - clover (same as cobertura) - jcoverage (same as cobertura)
A measure unit test coverage is nice to have. I have an increasing level of warm fuzzy feelings knowing you've reached the 80, 90, or 95 unit test coverage percents. But that doesn't mean much if the tests verify wrong behavior or don't actually test what is trying to be tested. Personally I'm happy to use clover with my IDE integration.
Changes since last release + changelog (SCM activity per commit) + clirr (binary compatibility) + developer-activity (SCM activity per developer) + file-activity (SCM activity per file) o changes - jdiff (same as clirr)
A running change log and the ability to compare API changes is useful. Other stuff such as developer activity or file activity is less interesting, especially if you monitor the commits on -dev.
Reference + javadoc + jxr (cross reference) User guide o faq - linkcheck (might be enabled during development)
Sure, why not. -- Sandy McArthur "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
