On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Christopher Tubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > Moving to the natural Maven 3 usage of maven-site-plugin as a normal build > plugin, with configuration for reporting, instead of dealing with the > massive "reporting" section that gets mapped to the maven-site-plugin, may > also help.
Just the opposite. As a member of the Maven PMC, I can sadly report that we currently recommend *against* that. It was not thought through, it doesn't work very well, and in particular it makes this problem worse. > > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 For moving cobertura to its own profile, add something saying so to the >> readme/website, and let people decide when they want to activate it. >> >> >> On 11/18/2012 05:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >>> There's a very longstanding bug/confusion in Maven that results from >>> reporting plugins that fork executions. That's not the same thing as >>> forking a jvm, it's an internal maven business where a plugin says, >>> 'whoops, to run me you have to make a whole new maven and run all this >>> other stuff first'. >>> >>> The cobertura plugin does this. So does Javadoc in some really irritating >>> cases. >>> >>> If folks would like a faster site build, I'd suggest moving cobertura >>> to a profile. >>> >>> If the current 'go for coffee' situation doesn't bother anyone too >>> much, we can leave it alone. >>> >>
