activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.com>
Subject Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build
Date Wed, 06 May 2015 21:07:04 GMT
I sent PR # 231 [1] to (hopefully) deal with this.  The license and checkstyle checks will
be on for the the following profiles:

  -dev - used by developers
  -tests - used by Jenkins for regression tests, including nightly tests
  -fast-tests - used to verify pull requests
  -release - used when releasing (duh)

They're off for everything else.


Justin

[1] https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/231

----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Bish" <tabish121@gmail.com>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 9:35:51 AM
Subject: Re: Artemis with License Checks on PR/s build

On 05/06/2015 10:24 AM, Andy Taylor wrote:
> which I think is fine. it doesnt matter for users who are just
> building from source, its only an issue for contributions which the PR
> build is there to catch

Agreed, the users should be able to work however they are comfortable
and let the automation handle the checks. 

>
> On 06/05/15 15:21, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>> That's the kind of thing that won't happen.. people will just ignore it
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> or document how to enable it so users can turn it on if they want
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/05/15 15:16, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The thing is.. we will have more failures on the PR builds.. .I would
>>>> rather have people getting issues at their code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you could just document how to disable on README.. and make it
>>>> easy for users to disable it.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Andy Taylor <andy.tayls67@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I prefer it just to be run on PR's, not everyone that
>>>>> build
>>>>> from
>>>>> source is bothered about it. I think users should be able to build
>>>>> from
>>>>> source no matter what they have in their source tree, log files,
>>>>> users
>>>>> own
>>>>> source etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/05/15 14:54, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, the poms now have the RAT check enabled. That means we would
get
>>>>>> our own mistakes instead of wasting server's time resource with a
>>>>>> failed PR.
>>>>>> I think that's the right way to do it... we wouldn't waste server's
>>>>>> time resource on failed PRs... and wouldn't waste anyone's time on
>>>>>> looking at PRs for that kind of error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I'm strongly in favor on keeping the check on on the builds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there anyone with a different opinion on this.. and on that
>>>>>> case,,
>>>>>> why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just a heads up,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Justin Bertram has enabled license checks on the build again,
>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>> PR checks...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, from now on committing java files without headers won't get
un
>>>>>>> noticed without a build failure ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com 
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Mime
View raw message