Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-maven-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 72371 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2010 18:12:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 4 Nov 2010 18:12:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 51234 invoked by uid 500); 4 Nov 2010 18:13:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-maven-dev-archive@maven.apache.org Received: (qmail 51160 invoked by uid 500); 4 Nov 2010 18:13:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Maven Developers List" Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@maven.apache.org Received: (qmail 51152 invoked by uid 99); 4 Nov 2010 18:13:13 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:13:13 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 74.125.82.171 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of brianf@infinity.nu) Received: from [74.125.82.171] (HELO mail-wy0-f171.google.com) (74.125.82.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:13:05 +0000 Received: by wyb39 with SMTP id 39so2101325wyb.30 for ; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.58.82 with SMTP id f18mr1080135wbh.12.1288894364496; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.171.69 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Nov 2010 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:12:44 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Auto apache version standard as an enforcer rule? From: Brian Fox To: Maven Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > If I were to clean this up and construct an enforcer rule that > demanded adherence to the letter of the law of the apache version > standard, is something that would be allowed into the maven enforcer > plugin? > Given a proper rule with tests, I would unlikely reject it out of hand. > Or would the team prefer I continue to try to work the the clirr-mojo? > My gut though is that this might be better as a report than a rule. I think an enforcer rule could get in the way of developers if as soon as they made a breaking change, the build blew up on them. It would make a bit more sense in a release profile but even there blowing up a build is annoying. What belongs in the enforcer vs other plugins is definitely a grey area that has no great answer. Certainly I could make a rule to duplicate checkstyle and pmd checks, but those plugins have ways of failing the build already. The enforcer wasn't intended to become the central place for all things that fail a build, although it could. Given that there seems to be great overlap with the clirr stuff in checking the api, it feels like the functionality should be there. However, if you construct it as a separate plexus component, then both clirr and the enforcer could use that shared code to provide multiple ways to attack it. > Give me a firm commitment (contingent on quality of course ) and I > could have this done tonight. > > Rex > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org