incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ali Lown" <...@lown.me.uk>
Subject Re: Review Request: Enhancements for get-third-party.sh script.
Date Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:18:25 GMT


> On March 14, 2013, 1:37 p.m., Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado wrote:
> > As junit github download is not working, following Thomas Broyer comment, we can
use this code in your new script:
> > 
> > [[ -f $out/junit/junit.jar ]] || (
> >   dir junit
> >   get http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/junit/junit/4.10/ junit-4.10.jar
> >   get http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/junit/junit/4.10/ junit-4.10-sources.jar
> >   mkdir -p $out/junit
> >   cp junit-4.10.jar $out/junit/junit.jar
> >   cp junit-4.10-sources.jar $out/junit/src.jar
> >   cd ..
> >   rm -rf junit
> > )
> >
> 
> Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado wrote:
>     LGTM, but can I help with this review?
> 
> Ali Lown wrote:
>     Vicente, doesn't look like anybody else has any comments and this has been sitting
here for 2 weeks now.
>     
>     Feel free to directly commit this (and any other minor changes you wish to make to
this script) to the repository without needing to put it in an explicit review request.
> 
> Yuri Zelikov wrote:
>     Sorry, didn't see your comment. The change is LGTM. Actually I was thinking about
replacing the bash script with an ANT using the "get" task, but this can be done later.
>     Regarding Ali's suggestion to directly commit minor changes - I think such things
should be done with caution and every change should be reviewed unless the change is really
minor, like fixing a typo or in case you posted a review request but no one is available foe
reviewing.

Perhaps a clarification was needed: I was only referring to minor changes during the application
of Vicente's suggested fix above to make it work with the existing script. In general, I agree
that for anything much more major than fixing a typo (or small scale whitespace changes),
it is better to post a review request.

Perhaps we should agree on something when reviews appear to stall (as happened with this review
request for weeks/months), whereby no comments within X days/weeks implies it can be committed?


- Ali


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9045/#review17872
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 21, 2013, 7:05 p.m., Yuri Zelikov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/9045/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 21, 2013, 7:05 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for wave, Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado and Ali Lown.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Enhancements for get-third-party.sh script.
> 1.Renames the script to use "-" instead of "_" to comply with the naming policy
> 2. Adds validation to the build.xml to warn in case the test dependencies are missing.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   README da77f49 
>   build.properties c476a82 
>   build.xml 3d3c125 
>   get-third-party.sh PRE-CREATION 
>   get_third_party.sh d8b1ce2 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/9045/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Yuri Zelikov
> 
>


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