accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: moving rat to a profile?
Date Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:07:32 GMT
I think that depends on the type of thing being patched. A patch that 
fixes a bug makes sense to go against a previously-released version. A 
patch for some new feature does not.

On 6/17/14, 2:38 PM, Christopher wrote:
> Personally, I think that contributors should be patching against the last
> released version, not master. Early on Josh argued that we should keep the
> master HEAD identical to the latest release, and develop in a development
> branch. I didn't fully understand his reasonings back then, but if we were
> making that decision now, I'd go for that.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> This problem is exasperated by our development model. We tell people to
>> clone our repo, which puts them on master by default. Then we tell them to
>> work against the oldest branch that has the bug, which is almost always
>> going to be 1.6 and sometimes even 1.5. After switching branches, they'll
>> have the extra modules laying around, and unless they know to look for them
>> are going to get bit by the RAT check. This is something that happens for
>> almost every single new contributor, and we saw it come up several times
>> during the hackathon.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know that this will help much.
>>>
>>> We already have a *lot* for new contributors to keep track of. If they
>> miss
>>> the step of running maven clean, they end up exactly where we are now.
>>>
>>> The output from the Rat plugin doesn't make it easy to figure out how
>> they
>>> got into that state, nor how to back out of it. They're likely at a point
>>> where they can't easily go back to the branch that could do the clean, so
>>> they're back to "add your files and use git clean." Which we already know
>>> isn't going great for people.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Billie Rinaldi <
>> billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How about recommending a mvn clean before checking out a new branch?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My concern with a default-on profile is the same one I have with
>>>>> Christopher's suggestion that we recommend -Drat.ignoreErrors=true.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's going to make the "easy" path one where things aren't checked.
>>>> That's
>>>>> going to necessitate we check things periodically and during release.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can just as easily do those checks by activating the profile, e.g.
>>> in
>>>> a
>>>>> jenkins build and in the release script.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Billie Rinaldi <
>>>> billie.rinaldi@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not thrilled about turning it off by default.  How about
>> putting
>>> it
>>>>> in
>>>>>> a profile that would be enabled by default, but could be disabled
>>> with
>>>> a
>>>>>> flag for those who don't understand why it's failing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've had a few different new-to-Accumulo contributors recently
>> run
>>>> into
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> issue of Rat failing the build after changing branches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know we already have a warning about this[1], but AFAICT it's
>>> over
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> threshold for consumable information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even after pointing people to the warning, the existing
>> workaround
>>>>>> tripped
>>>>>>> up atleast one of them. Despite the warning about using "git
>>> clean,"
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> destruction of their local IDE changes were surprising.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For contributions to Accumulo that aren't coming from committers,
>>> the
>>>>> Rat
>>>>>>> plugin seems much more likely to give a false positive than to
>>> catch
>>>> an
>>>>>>> error. Additionally, whatever committer is reviewing the
>>> contribution
>>>>>>> should be checking for license compliance anyways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the interests of reducing the surprise for new contributors,
>> I'd
>>>>> like
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> move our use of Rat to a profile that is only default enabled
>>> during
>>>> a
>>>>>>> release run.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The profile would still let those who want rat to run on every
>>> build
>>>> to
>>>>>>> enable it and we could update the guide for handling new
>>>> contributions
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> say committers should enable the rat profile to help guard
>> against
>>>>>> errors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any objections?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]: http://accumulo.apache.org/source.html#running-a-build
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sean
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sean
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sean
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message