accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: moving rat to a profile?
Date Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:15:59 GMT
Agreed. That's a minimum.


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>
wrote:

> I've filed ACCUMULO-2927 to make 'git clean -df' sufficient. No matter how
> we decide about the rat plugin, I think not requiring -x is a worthwhile
> goal.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I agree that instructing users to use this option to modify the build
> isn't
> > acceptable and I wouldn't recommend this as a response to users... I was
> > only stating this as a fact, to point out that a special profile on by
> > default with an option to disable isn't needed, since that's the current
> > behavior.
> >
> > I'm more interested in the targeted .gitignore with the recommended "git
> > clean -df" option without -x. This helps contributors understand build
> > tools, makes them aware of the differences between branches, and doesn't
> > hide problems introduced by switching branches in an obscure error, all
> > without blowing away their IDE build files. (though switching branches
> > often warrants blowing these IDE files away anyway, since different
> modules
> > in different branches will be problematic for most IDEs).
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Alex Moundalexis <
> alexm@clouderagovt.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This kind of response is hardly conducive to prospective contributors.
> > >
> > > We should consider ourselves lucky whenever a contributor provides a
> > patch,
> > > let alone runs a build. Expecting a new contributor be fully aware of
> the
> > > Apache licensing details isn't realistic, much less being aware of the
> > > arguments concerning Rat; if the ignoreErrors argument is TheWay, it
> > ought
> > > to be mentioned prominently in the source documentation [1], but I
> don't
> > > think that's correct either...
> > >
> > > I don't want to encourage contributors to skip the build. I want
> > > contributors to be aware of the licensing requirements, but not at the
> > > expense of providing otherwise-viable patches. I'd recommend relaxing
> the
> > > Rat checks for contributors, and making it a required part of the
> profile
> > > for automated Jenkins builds and during the release process.
> > >
> > > The onus should be on the committers to ensure that all of the
> licensing
> > is
> > > in place before the release, but preferably long before that point by
> > > guiding the contributor to make the necessary license additions before
> > the
> > > commit.
> > >
> > > I've been told to correct whitespace at the end of a line before and to
> > > re-submit a patch, seems trivial to address missing licensing files in
> > the
> > > same way.
> > >
> > > [1] https://accumulo.apache.org/source.html
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > There's already a way to skip it for those who don't understand why
> its
> > > > failing and are incapable/unwilling to troubleshoot:
> > > > -Drat.ignoreErrors=true
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>

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