2011/11/17 Norman Maurer <[email protected]>: > I think a) is the way to go then. I dont think we need to take special care > here about the license...
I just read this: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cobertura So I'm fine with a) , too. Stefano > thanks, > norman > > Am Donnerstag, 17. November 2011 schrieb Felix Knecht <[email protected]>: >> After all it looks like there are comming up some unexpected problems > using the EMMA plugin instead if the cobertura plugin: >> >> - Multi module projects are not really supported (or it's simply too old > or not really maven 3.x compatible). When running specific goals in a > submodule for the maven-jar-plugin e.g. the instrumentation goal must be > run in the submodule again and it must be executed after the additional > jar-plugin goals. There are more of the same problems -> that's not a > clean, clear way to go >> - Report generation seems to be also problematical when it comes to > multi-module projects. Because of the mentioned above the report generation > may fail and the error says "instrumentation has already been done" - looks > like a chicken-egg problem >> - The described problems above to not only have impacts on the module > itself, but also for projects using a the jar of such a module as > dependency (see also Normans mail [1] - thanks for bringing up this > problem). >> >> Sorry about being too enhousiastic putting the EMMA-plugin into the > lately released TLP pom.xml :-/ >> >> IMO we should >> a) either use the cobertura plugin as it is only used for report > generation and code review (I'm not aware that it's needed in any James > project to build a distribution) >> b) do code review without knowing about test code coverage >> c) find another suitable plugin for this (what I haven't up to now) >> >> and finally a), b) or c) will need to find the way into the next (soon) > release of the TLP pom.xml >> >> WDOT? >> >> Thanks and regards >> Felix >> >> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg36812.html >> >> >> On 10/20/2011 12:42 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >>> 2011/10/20 Felix Knecht<[email protected]>: >>>> On 10/18/2011 04:42 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2011/10/18<[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Author: felixk >>>>>> Date: Tue Oct 18 13:52:43 2011 >>>>>> New Revision: 1185659 >>>>>> >>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1185659&view=rev >>>>>> Log: >>>>>> Both (emma / cobertura) plugins are for measure of codecoverage of > tests. >>>>>> Using only one of the plugins should fullfill the needs. If I've > chosen for >>>>>> any reasons the wrong one please let me know. For now I left cobertura >>>>>> plugin. >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK cobertura is GPL while emma is CPL. As long as we don't bundle >>>>> them and don't require them to build our products we should be fine >>>>> with both, but I guess that if in doubt we should better choose emma >>>>> as CPL is a category B license >>>>> (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html). >>>> >>>> I thought the cobertura plugin to be of Apache license: >>>> http://mojo.codehaus.org/cobertura-maven-plugin/license.html >>> >>> The plugin is Apache Licensed but the cobertura jar is GPL >>> It is also correctly reported in the dependency report: >>> http://mojo.codehaus.org/cobertura-maven-plugin/dependencies.html >>> But the right place to look for the license is here: >>> http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html >>> "The Cobertura ant tasks are licensed under the Apache Software >>> License, Version 1.1. The rest of Cobertura is licensed under the GNU >>> General Public License, Version 2.0. See below for detailed >>> explanations." >>> >>> And as you can see the cobertura license page has a long explanation >>> and concludes with an "it all depends on how you interpret the >>> license". >>> >>>> AFAICS it's only used to generate reports and it's not required to > build the >>>> product itself but for code review. >>>> >>>> I can find other Apache projects using this plugin also - but this > doesn't >>>> means that it's the way to go for us and I'm not an expert in such > things. >>> >>>> Can anybody say more about this? >>> >>> What does cobertura gives us more than emma? If there is no reason to >>> use cobertura instead of emma why don't we simply keep emma (you >>> commit message sounds like you randomly chose one) so we don't waste >>> time trying to give answers to the complex licensing stuff? (I believe >>> we are safe to produce reports with a GPL product, but I'm not a >>> lawyer, and I like emma) >>> >>> If, instead, we have good reasons to prefer cobertura then it makes >>> sense to ask Robert (he's the most experienced in our team, wrt >>> licensing) and maybe file an issue to ASF "LEGAL" jira project. >>> >>> Stefano >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
