[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Any objections to me adding Cobertura coverage report to the Maven Build?
The problem was that the javascript "programs" themselves are GPL. See threads http://www.nabble.com/Cobertura-%2B-downloaded-sites-concern-to14974449.html#a14974449 http://www.nabble.com/-all--Cobertura...-to15654446.html#a15654446 http://apache.markmail.org/message/luukuehijisvoawo#query:+page:1+mid:luukuehijisvoawo+state:results Happily the issue was resolved https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-19 michael Samuel Robert Reid wrote: > GPL itself says output from a GPL program is not covered: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput > > Sam Reid > > Michael Heuer wrote: > > allain wrote: > > > > My reasons for wanting to do this are: > - Obviously Code Coverage Metrics are good but this one is IDE > agnostic. > - It has a Hudson plugin that can be installed allowing us to diagram > the (hopefully) increasing progression of code coverage over time in a > nice convenient graph. > > http://wiki.hudson-ci.org//display/HUDSON/Cobertura+Plugin > > > The javascript code used in the Cobertura reports themselves are > licensed under the GPL, and there was concern in e.g. the Apache > Commons community that distributing those reports violates the terms > of the license. You may find some discussion threads in archives of > the commons-dev mailing list. I can't recall what the resolution of > the issue was though. > >michael --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Any objections to me adding Cobertura coverage report to the Maven Build?
Am 16.07.2009 um 13:41 schrieb allain: > I do mean such a thing. I'm not used to having the parent's pom file > split into a subdirecty. My bad. Thanks. BTW: I really like the growing green in there. You're a gifted gardener ;-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Any objections to me adding Cobertura coverage report to the Maven Build?
I do mean such a thing. I'm not used to having the parent's pom file split into a subdirecty. My bad. Thanks. On Jul 16, 5:54 am, Marcus Rohrmoser wrote: > now it's me who can't follow. Cobertura? You don't mean such a > thing:http://files.getdropbox.com/u/965005/piccolo2d.java/site-stage/piccol... > - do You? That's part of the mvn build ever since. > > M --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Any objections to me adding Cobertura coverage report to the Maven Build?
now it's me who can't follow. Cobertura? You don't mean such a thing: http://files.getdropbox.com/u/965005/piccolo2d.java/site-stage/piccolo2d-core/cobertura/index.html - do You? That's part of the mvn build ever since. M --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Any objections to me adding Cobertura coverage report to the Maven Build?
GPL itself says output from a GPL program is not covered: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput Sam Reid Michael Heuer wrote: allain wrote: My reasons for wanting to do this are: - Obviously Code Coverage Metrics are good but this one is IDE agnostic. - It has a Hudson plugin that can be installed allowing us to diagram the (hopefully) increasing progression of code coverage over time in a nice convenient graph. http://wiki.hudson-ci.org//display/HUDSON/Cobertura+Plugin The _javascript_ code used in the Cobertura reports themselves are licensed under the GPL, and there was concern in e.g. the Apache Commons community that distributing those reports violates the terms of the license. You may find some discussion threads in archives of the commons-dev mailing list. I can't recall what the resolution of the issue was though. michael --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Any objections to me adding Cobertura coverage report to the Maven Build?
allain wrote: > My reasons for wanting to do this are: > - Obviously Code Coverage Metrics are good but this one is IDE > agnostic. > - It has a Hudson plugin that can be installed allowing us to diagram > the (hopefully) increasing progression of code coverage over time in a > nice convenient graph. > > http://wiki.hudson-ci.org//display/HUDSON/Cobertura+Plugin The javascript code used in the Cobertura reports themselves are licensed under the GPL, and there was concern in e.g. the Apache Commons community that distributing those reports violates the terms of the license. You may find some discussion threads in archives of the commons-dev mailing list. I can't recall what the resolution of the issue was though. michael --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---