accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: moving rat to a profile?
Date Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:59:49 GMT
All due respect Christopher, you're a developer with many years of
experience who's worked with this code base for a decent amount of time;
that you don't find the error message problematic has very little bearing
on the fact that new contributors have (and have said as much multiple
times).

I'm not saying that new contributors shouldn't think about licensing at
all. I'm saying that we should ease them into it, similar to how we ease
them into everything else (e.g. integration tests).

I don't believe we are at a point of irreconcilable differences.
Specifically, I haven't heard any technical justification that we are at an
increased risk of improperly licensed files getting into the code base
provided that committers follow the proposed changed instructions to check
contributions for rat failures (esp if they follow the instructions to
default all of their builds to fail on rat errors). Do you believe that our
committers will not follow these instructions? If so, would a git hook that
did the enforcement suffice?

-Sean



On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> I'd like to point out that there's a few upstream JIRAs related to this
> conversation that, if resolved, might address all concerns in this thread:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAT-61
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAT-157
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAT-164
>
> To the points made, I really don't find the error message to be that
> problematic for new contributors, especially now that `git status`
> prominently shows the ignored files left behind from a build in a different
> branch. It tells you precisely what the problem is, and which file to look
> in to to see the details. The bare minimum thing a contributor can do is
> read the error message, after all. And, doing so will begin getting them
> into the mindset of understanding the licensing, which is really a
> prerequisite for contributing.
>
> I empathize with the concerns enumerated about the error being related to
> something other than what the user did... but the fact is, it's not
> unrelated to what the user did. It's related to the fact that they are
> using the SCM, building, then switching branches, then building again
> without cleaning up the previous build. This would be equivalent to
> unpacking a tarball and running `make`, then unpacking a different tarball
> over top of the first and running `make install`. It's not unrelated to the
> contributor's actions. However, it is true that they may not understand the
> quirks of maven, git, and the rat plugin, to understand how it is related
> to what they did, and with that I share the expressed frustration, but am
> also more than willing to help any contributors fill this gap in their
> understanding (as I'm sure we all are). I further doubt that this has
> actually caused any possible contributor to be turned away, without so much
> as a question in IRC or on the mailing lists.
>
> At this point, I think there's probably an irreconcilable difference in
> views regarding the default action of this plugin. So, perhaps it might be
> necessary to simply vote on the issue.
>
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Changes to ease ignoring the rat report (but leaving it enabled to fail
> the
> > build by default) only help established contributors. Our changes to make
> > clean up of trash easier similarly only help more established
> contributors.
> >
> > We have a duty to help grow the community. A part of that is committers
> > helping to ease new contributors into the requirements that they need to
> > fulfill. We already know that having the rat plugin fail the build, in
> > combination with it having no way to ignore trash from other branches,
> is a
> > stumbling block for new contributors.
> >
> > It is much better to have a committer guide a new contributor through
> > something like a missing license header than it is to have that new
> > contributor run into the current failure.
> >
> > * It's a failed build when they "haven't done anything yet" - something I
> > use as a major red flag about new communities and I'm sure others do as
> > well
> > * It's a failure message that gives you 0 information until you dig into
> > the report
> > * In the most common case, that report tells you it's a problem unrelated
> > to anything you did
> > * It's a problem that isn't fixed with "mvn clean", so new users have to
> > ask for guidance (presuming they don't give up)
> >
> > Provided that we have instructions on how committers should be checking
> new
> > contributions with the plugin combined with instructions for committers
> to
> > default the plugin to fail the build, what is the added risk?
> >
> > We'll have Jenkins as a fall back to keep us honest, just like we do to
> > make sure committers are checking that things compile at all.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Eric Newton <eric.newton@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -1 for removing the rat plugin for default builds
> > > +1 for a simple way to ignore it
> > >
> > > I find Christopher's reasoning sound.  I was guilty of committing half
> > the
> > > non-compliant files before the rat check was on by default.
> > >
> > > I wish the rat check was less annoying about build trash.
> > > I wish the rat check produced error messages that didn't require me to
> > > consult a report.
> > > I wish the template mechanism in eclipse worked every time so source
> > files
> > > would always get the copyright header by default.
> > >
> > > But, automating the check, and moving it to an earlier point in the dev
> > > cycle is a good thing.
> > >
> > > -Eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since this came up in Review (https://reviews.apache.org/r/23391/),
> > I'm
> > > > revisiting this thread.
> > > >
> > > > In short, it seems there was some confusion on whether or not we had
> > > > reached consensus on enabling rat by default, with
> > rat.ignoreErrors=true
> > > > set to default, and requiring any entities that should be responsible
> > for
> > > > checking legal status of contributions to turn it in (set
> > > > rat.ignoreErrors=false for Jenkins, committers, etc.)
> > > >
> > > > I think one problem is that there was not actually consensus. This
> was
> > a
> > > > proposal made previously by Bill Havanki to do the above, after which
> > we
> > > > agreed to minimally making changes to make "git clean -df"
> sufficient.
> > > But
> > > > there did not appear to be any consensus reached on disabling error
> > > > checking by default, as proposed. Billie had expressed concerns about
> > > > encouraging committers to not take care in checking the legal status
> of
> > > > their commits, and not only do I share those concerns, I'd also
> extend
> > my
> > > > concerns to any contributor. This is simply something that everybody
> > > > contributing to ASF should be aware of. Committers have the extra
> > > > responsibility, but even contributors and potential committers should
> > > > understand the contribution requirements, the development process,
> and
> > > have
> > > > put in some minimal amount of thought about whether they have the
> > ability
> > > > to contribute a particular piece of code legally.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, I'm concerned about who we'd be easing things for.
> > There's
> > > > clearly an increased risk of commits/contributions without strict
> > > checking
> > > > for licenses (we've seen past commits with these errors... just do
> `git
> > > log
> > > > | grep -i license` to see that). So, we're accepting that risk by
> > making
> > > > the easy route one that serves who, exactly? The ASF makes it quite
> > clear
> > > > that SCM is for developers, not end users, and this is an
> SCM-specific
> > > > problem (specifically branch switching in git).
> > > >
> > > > So, I do not think there is consensus. There are certainly
> outstanding
> > > > concerns for disabling the rat check by default. However, I think
> there
> > > is
> > > > room for further discussion and compromise, and I'd love to consider
> > more
> > > > solutions (or discuss the merits of the proposed solutions). For
> > > instance,
> > > > one area of compromise I've conceded (as stated in the review) is
> that
> > I
> > > > think it'd be a good idea to put the rat check in a profile which can
> > be
> > > > optionally disabled, so that it doesn't take the 3 extra seconds to
> > run,
> > > > which could impact some iterative testing (like running one IT at a
> > time,
> > > > or doing automated `git bisect`).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>



-- 
Sean

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