On 1/5/07, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/4/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/>
>
> Tempted towards a "dev" profile for pushing out all reports
> (Cobertura, PMD, CPD, Checkstyle and what not) -- so (a) we don't get
> caught up in trying to sanitize all the bits these reports generate in
> the release distros and (b) its possible to generate a light version
> of the site for the documentation (but not reporting) bits.
I can see that POV ... and as long as we can convince Continuum to use the
"dev" profile on its continuous build runs, I'm fine. The important thing
to me is that the coverage reports (in the case of this particular plugin)
are available to developers on a "continuous" basis.
Does publishing a GPL'd javascript file, on the Apache Shale website (but
not part of a downloadable artifact), cause a problem with the standard
"distribution" policy of what we can include in an artifact? Nah ... it's
too late in the evening today for me to want to go there :-).
<snap/>
;-)
On a similar note, is continuum currently using the apps profile?
(Wendy?) For example, the navbar and no logo on shale-sql-browser [1]
are signs its dated.
-Rahul
[1] http://shale.apache.org/shale-apps/shale-sql-browser/index.html
Craig
