buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Boisvert" <boisv...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Emma and Cobertura getting to good for addon Re: svn commit: r700747 - /incubator/buildr/trunk/rakelib/rspec.rake
Date Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:51:04 GMT
How about "addon" for optional plugins that have tests and are officially
supported and "experimental" for the rest?

alex


On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:32 AM, lacton <lacton@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
> > The reason I didn't include addon to begin with is that everything
> > there is (or was) stuff that fell out of lib: not as well maintained,
> > documented, tested or committed to.
> >
> > I wasn't expecting it to have full or for that matter any test
> > coverage, but rather for some parts to mature and either move to lib,
> > or collected into separate gems (e.g. buildr-coverage).
> >
> > Not sure if we should keep this policy, but if we do, let's move Emma
> > and Cobertura to lib.
>
> Moving Emma and Cobertura to lib is fine with me.
>
> One thing I'd like to keep is that the extension should be loaded only
> if required by the user or the buildfile.  Right now, the way the
> Emma/Cobertura extensions work is to add the test coverage tool to the
> test task's dependencies and to add the instrumentation step before
> testing.  I don't want to penalize users that don't want to measure
> their test coverage.
>
> My understanding is that, currently, everything in lib is required
> during startup.  Should we add an 'optional import' directory in lib?
>
> Lacton
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message