accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher Tubbs" <ctubbsii...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 30236: Reorganize README
Date Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:34:38 GMT


> On Jan. 27, 2015, 3:04 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote:
> > BUILD.md, lines 35-71
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/diff/5/?file=836993#file836993line35>
> >
> >     I'm not sure this section is even necessary here. It seems more appropriate
to developer documentation on the website.
> 
> kturner wrote:
>     Its useful information, so it needs to go somewhere.  Build instructions for 1.4,
1.5 and 1.6 are very different.  Its nice when dealing with those older versions to be able
to look at their build instructions in the README.  I am not sure if version specific build
instructions would be properly maintained on the website.   IMO keeping these instructions
versioned with source is perferable to putting them on the website.  If we do keep these instructions
in source, I think BUILD.md is an ok place.

We have to consider the target audience. For build instructions for the target audience of
"consumers of the source tarball" (the official release), I think the BUILD.md file makes
sense. However, these instructions I've highlighted do not target that audience (as stated
explicitly in the paragraph under the `Iterative Experimentation` header). I think these instructions
would confuse the primary target audience and should not be in the BUILD.md file. It is useful,
though, and we need to put it somewhere... I just think that somewhere should be in a developer
section on the website, rather in the BUILD.md file targeted towards non-developers.


> On Jan. 27, 2015, 3:04 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote:
> > INSTALL.md, lines 152-223
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/diff/5/?file=836994#file836994line152>
> >
> >     I would like to see upgrade hints/tips/suggestions/procedures to be documented
in the release notes on the website.
> >     
> >     Perhaps they are appropriate here also, but I feel like those are going to be
very version-specific, and these README files aren't going to get a lot of attention over
time, and this information is going to get stale and/or lengthy and confusing.
> 
> kturner wrote:
>     The instructions will need to be updated for 1.7, could create a follow on issue
about 1.7 upgrade instructions that includes this.  I suppose one option is to not carry these
instructions forward for now, and refer to them in the old README when the 1.7 upgrade instructions
are written.
>     
>     > these README files aren't going to get a lot of attention over time
>     
>     Well I hope this reorganization of the content will encourage maintenance (or no
longer discourage maintenance, as I feel the previous state of things did).  I do not think
docs on the website have a better chance of being maintained vs docs in src.

I think the INSTALL.md primary target audience is first-time installers. Upgrade-related caveats
and items to take notice of seem appropriate for the release notes. It's probably fine to
include here as well. I just have more often seen projects provide upgrade instructions/notes
on the website.

> I do not think docs on the website have a better chance of being maintained vs docs in
src.

In general, I agree. But, that's not the case for release notes... which get attention on
every release.


> On Jan. 27, 2015, 3:04 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote:
> > TESTING.md, lines 20-53
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/diff/5/?file=836999#file836999line20>
> >
> >     This whole section feels like a maven tutorial. It might be sufficient to mention
that unit tests are executed by the maven-surefire-plugin, and integration tests are executed
by the maven-failsafe-plugin, and a link to the "Introduction to the Maven Build Lifecycle"
site, and each of those plugins for more information.
> >     
> >     Some of the other non-maven content, like the minimal requirements, and the
run-length seem appropriate and relevant, but there's a lot of detail here about how standard
maven plugins are working, and there are better resources for that information than our particular
execution of them.
> 
> kturner wrote:
>     oh no more comments about TESTING.md.  All I did in this patch was rename it from
TESTING to TESTING.md :)  However I am ok with reviewing and improving it here, its just that
all of the comments about it were completely unexpected.
>     
>     I don't feel like the following long sentence is equivalent to a maven tutorial.
 I can work the links in, but I see no harm in leaving it.
>     
>         Integration tests can be run by invoking `mvn integration-test` at the top of
the Apache Accumulo source tree; however,
>         like `mvn package` being recommended for unit tests, `mvn verify` is often the
recommended avenue to run the integration tests.
>     
>     Do you want to just remove the following?
>     
>         Take note that when invoking the `integration-test` lifecycle phase, other functions
will also be enabled which include
>         static analysis (findbugs) and software license checks (release analysis tool
-- RAT).

I just think it's unusual to describe how to execute each individual phase in the maven build
lifecycle. That's what I mean by "maven tutorial". The build instructions describe `mvn package`.
Here, it should just describe `mvn verify`. After all, the integration tests get executed
during the integration-test phase of the build lifecycle, but they don't get checked for errors
until the verify phase anyway. So, integration testing is not actually completed unless you
execute `mvn verify`. So, some of this is technically correct, but misleading, and doesn't
do justice the actual behavior of these goals.

> Do you want to just remove the following?

That would help, but I also think it would be better to simply describe `mvn verify` instead
of the other goals.


- Christopher


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/#review69865
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 28, 2015, 12:21 p.m., kturner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 28, 2015, 12:21 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for accumulo.
> 
> 
> Bugs: ACCUMULO-1515
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1515
> 
> 
> Repository: accumulo
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Reorganized information in README and converted to markdown.  
> 
> At this point I like the INSTALL.md document, but do not really like the content of the
README.md ATM.  Putting this up for review to get suggestions.
> 
> See how the markdown looks on GH : https://github.com/keith-turner/accumulo/tree/ACCUMULO-1515
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   BUILD.md PRE-CREATION 
>   INSTALL.md PRE-CREATION 
>   NOTICE af212c2 
>   README 4ebb078 
>   README.md PRE-CREATION 
>   TESTING cf2afba 
>   TESTING.md PRE-CREATION 
>   assemble/src/main/assemblies/component.xml 3f18da3 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> kturner
> 
>


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