accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: moving rat to a profile?
Date Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:43:58 GMT
Also, is there a reason clean -xdf is recommended instead of -df?  I think
the latter is sufficient to get rid of the offending target directories.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:37 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message