Hi Glyn
The main reason I'd prefer JaCoCo is that it is completely open source,
hosted on github and published under EPL 1.0
(
https://github.com/jacoco/jacoco/blob/master/LICENSE.md), thus I believe it
is a better fit for this project.
Regards,
Olaf
-----Original Message-----
From:
gemini-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gemini-
dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of
gemini-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxSent: Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2013 14:27
To:
gemini-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxSubject: gemini-dev Digest, Vol 39, Issue 2
Send gemini-dev mailing list submissions to
gemini-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gemini-devor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
gemini-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxYou can reach the person managing the list at
gemini-dev-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of gemini-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Gemini Naming 1.0.2.RELEASE is now available (Violeta Georgieva)
2. Re: gemini-dev Digest, Vol 39, Issue 1 (Olaf Otto)
3. Re: gemini-dev Digest, Vol 39, Issue 1 (Glyn Normington)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 09:31:10 +0300
From: Violeta Georgieva <
milesg78@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gemini and sub-projects developer discussions
<
gemini-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gemini-dev] Gemini Naming 1.0.2.RELEASE is now available
Message-ID:
<
CAFmzfTUkjTynoHcGS3-F5cGPmBmesJ6GqyCLEfXfT48hLdXGPg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi,
Gemini Naming has shipped its 1.0.2.RELEASE. The artifacts are available for
download [1]. This release contains fix for BZ407399 [2].
The official documentation can be found here [3].
Regards
Violeta
[1]
http://eclipse.org/gemini/naming/download.php[2]
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=407399[3]
http://eclipse.org/gemini/naming/documentation.php-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/gemini-dev/attachments/20130509/61f
d27d1/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 13:57:38 +0200
From: "Olaf Otto" <
olaf@xxxxxxx>
To: <
gemini-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gemini-dev] gemini-dev Digest, Vol 39, Issue 1
Message-ID: <
000901ce4cac$6762fef0$3628fcd0$@x100.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Hi Glyn
I am about half way through all the testcases of the gemini core. I will
make the first commit once I am through with all of them to avoid
inhomogeneous testing state in a branch actively under development. However,
I just committed the POM with the new dependencies - I am quite sure these
shall suffice for the refactorings. Regarding test coverage: I found that an
old version of clover was once used to measure code coverage. It is my
intention to compare both coverage and execution time of the tests with the
initial test coverage figures to prevent a drop of test coverage - how about
switching to JaCoCo (
http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/)? The alternative could
be to request an open source license for clover from Atlassian, but I'd
prefer the former solution.
Regards,
Olaf
-----Original Message-----
From:
gemini-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:gemini-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of
gemini-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxSent: Dienstag, 7. Mai 2013 18:00
To:
gemini-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxSubject: gemini-dev Digest, Vol 39, Issue 1
Send gemini-dev mailing list submissions to
gemini-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gemini-devor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
gemini-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxYou can reach the person managing the list at
gemini-dev-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of gemini-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Gemini Blueprint 2.0.0 schedule (Glyn Normington)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 10:18:16 +0100
From: Glyn Normington <
gnormington@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Gemini and sub-projects developer discussions
<
gemini-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gemini-dev] Gemini Blueprint 2.0.0 schedule
Message-ID: <
4B7F11F3-5F4A-442E-979B-1A69BB96F2C1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Olaf
Any progress on this? The end of May isn't as far off as it was...
Regards,
Glyn
On 4 Apr 2013, at 21:41, Olaf Otto <
olaf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
First of all, I'd like to say I'm happy to be on board soon. The
gemini-blueprint project is one of the most valuable open source additions
to the projects I'm involved with and I am looking forward to (hopefully)
help advancing it.
Regarding the test improvements: End of May 2013 seems feasible.
Adding
new dependencies for testing is likely to be the first thing I'll do, thus
getting the CQs done timely should not be an issue. Presumably, those
dependencies are exclusively required for testing (i.e. "works-with" [1]).
I will soon proceed by posting an example of the test conventions and
code
style I'd like to use to see if everyone agrees.
so that it is available to replace 2.0.0.M01 in the Virgo 3.7.0 line which
is also currently planned to ship in June.
Olaf Otto, who should become a GB committer within about a week, is
proposing some improvements to testing which may involve additional
dependencies and therefore CQs. I'd like to understand whether the
improvements can be made by, say, the end of May 2013 so that I can include
them in the 2.0 release. If not, I may go ahead and prepare the 2.0.0
docuware now and we can add the new test stuff in 2.1.0.
Hi Glyn
I am about half way through all the testcases of the gemini core. I
will make the first commit once I am through with all of them to avoid
inhomogeneous testing state in a branch actively under development.
However, I just committed the POM with the new dependencies - I am
quite sure these shall suffice for the refactorings. Regarding test
coverage: I found that an old version of clover was once used to
measure code coverage. It is my intention to compare both coverage and
execution time of the tests with the initial test coverage figures to
prevent a drop of test coverage - how about switching to JaCoCo
(
http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/)? The alternative could be to request
an open source license for clover from Atlassian, but I'd prefer the
former solution.
Regards,
Olaf
-----Original Message-----
From:
gemini-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:gemini-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of
gemini-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxSent: Dienstag, 7. Mai 2013 18:00
To:
gemini-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxSubject: gemini-dev Digest, Vol 39, Issue 1
Send gemini-dev mailing list submissions to
gemini-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gemini-devor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
gemini-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxYou can reach the person managing the list at
gemini-dev-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than
"Re: Contents of gemini-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Gemini Blueprint 2.0.0 schedule (Glyn Normington)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 10:18:16 +0100
From: Glyn Normington <
gnormington@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Gemini and sub-projects developer discussions
<
gemini-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gemini-dev] Gemini Blueprint 2.0.0 schedule
Message-ID: <
4B7F11F3-5F4A-442E-979B-1A69BB96F2C1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Olaf
Any progress on this? The end of May isn't as far off as it was...
Regards,
Glyn
On 4 Apr 2013, at 21:41, Olaf Otto <
olaf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
First of all, I'd like to say I'm happy to be on board soon. The
gemini-blueprint project is one of the most valuable open source
additions to the projects I'm involved with and I am looking forward
to (hopefully) help advancing it.
Regarding the test improvements: End of May 2013 seems feasible.
Adding
new dependencies for testing is likely to be the first thing I'll do,
thus getting the CQs done timely should not be an issue. Presumably,
those dependencies are exclusively required for testing (i.e. "works-with"
[1]).
I will soon proceed by posting an example of the test conventions and
code
style I'd like to use to see if everyone agrees.
so that it is available to replace 2.0.0.M01 in the Virgo 3.7.0 line
which is also currently planned to ship in June.
Olaf Otto, who should become a GB committer within about a week, is
proposing some improvements to testing which may involve additional
dependencies and therefore CQs. I'd like to understand whether the
improvements can be made by, say, the end of May 2013 so that I can
include them in the 2.0 release. If not, I may go ahead and prepare
the 2.0.0 docuware now and we can add the new test stuff in 2.1.0.
