<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28/03/2015 15:03, Martijn Verburg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7YuAQX5vGhyUan3M-Hp1R1mdPuAMyRsPU+i-eFRLAV--wW=A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Oracle's internal <span class="" id=":8h3.1" tabindex="-1">QA</span>
team were able to confirm that the numbers that the Adoption
Group were producing are very close (not a statistical
significant difference) to their numbers. With validation
that the numbers are accurate, it would be good to start
publishing these for the purpose of guiding <span class=""
id=":8h3.2" tabindex="-1">OpenJDK</span> developers to areas
that need more test coverage!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What steps would people like to take next?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think the right home for these reports is in the quality
group. They could host the code coverage reports and
pro-actively release test coverage numbers alongside the #
tests passing/failing (as they do currently).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>@Rory, is that feasible in the short term? I understand
that there's potentially some technical work to do and other
hoops to jump through. If it's not possible in the short term
then perhaps the quality group could reference the reports
that the Adoption Group are hosting (with a caveat) in the
short term until that work can be completed.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Hi Martijn,<br>
<br>
I think it makes sense for the person generating the reports to host
and post a pointer to the<br>
mailing list. I mentioned before comparing our internal numbers with
yours is like comparing <br>
apples with pears.<br>
<br>
Rgds,Rory<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7YuAQX5vGhyUan3M-Hp1R1mdPuAMyRsPU+i-eFRLAV--wW=A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font color="#000000">Special thanks to John Oliver and A<span
style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><span class=""
id=":8h3.3" tabindex="-1">lexandre</span> <span
class="" id=":8h3.4" tabindex="-1">Iline</span> for
digging into this!</span></font></div>
<div> <br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature">Cheers,<br>
Martijn</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 4 March 2015 at 13:25, Ben Evans <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:benjamin.john.evans@gmail.com"
target="_blank">benjamin.john.evans@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Depending
on timings, I can probably be free on Tuesday (I'm on GMT
too).<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Martijn Verburg<br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martijnverburg@gmail.com">martijnverburg@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> Hi All,<br>
><br>
> As some of you know we've been running some
experiments in the Cloudbees<br>
> incubator to see if we can get accurate code
coverage numbers using JCov on<br>
> the jdk9 forest in particular.<br>
><br>
> John Oliver has gone back and reviewed the process
and the numbers and we<br>
> *think* we've gone about it the right way.<br>
><br>
> Before we even think about taking the next step to
start producing these<br>
> numbers regularly in the incubator, we need to make
sure that we've used<br>
> JCov correctly and that the numbers are not
misleading.<br>
><br>
> It would be great to have a technical call with
John Oliver, Mani, someone<br>
> from Rory's team (the person who does the internal
OpenJDK numbers?) and<br>
> probably Jonathan Gibbons.<br>
><br>
> Does next Tuesday suit folks? It all depends on
timezones (John Oliver,<br>
> Mani and myself are GMT)<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Martijn<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Rgds,Rory O'Donnell
Quality Engineering Manager
Oracle EMEA , Dublin, Ireland </pre>
</body>
</html>