Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B2D538B2-D063-40A0-AEA3-5359B0023A4F@tesla.io>
References: <B021296E-3AC5-4359-9EC8-63CA327D008A@tesla.io>
	<CA+nPnMwvZLtGMdgFUFci3hVr3hTJfg5s9+waHiMddEc_6=toeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B2D538B2-D063-40A0-AEA3-5359B0023A4F@tesla.io>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:14:28 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAOGo0VYtENGfHDEOz+DSRrYasX7Znv2NiGXFTtFkWGYphtsxfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RAT setup
From: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 21 July 2013 19:47, Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io> wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
>
>> Revert my change upping to RAT 0.9
>>
>> Stupid plugin has major regression in performance, but 0.8 needs exclude=
s
>> for git
>>
>
> Yup, just noticed that as well. After trying to attempt to release my dis=
tribution 4 times and the RAT plugin blowing up 4 times. For the record tha=
t's just the wrong phase to check something in. I don't want to wait after =
all my tests to see a license violation report. Additionally it's running i=
n the release:perform but not anywhere else which is doubly annoying. So if=
 falling back to 0.8 fixes all that awesome.
>

AFAIK, the plugin has always bound to the phase verify by default.

RAT 0.9 added some extra syntax checks which perform very badly when
used on large files without AL headers.
RAT 0.8 is also slow on the same large files, but had fewer analysers,
so the issue was not so noticeable.
So you need to exclude large files that aren't supposed to have
headers, e.g. log files, Javadoc.
Both run much faster when only given input files with valid AL headers.

The performance problem has been fixed for the next release.

> Thanks for rolling that back.
>
>> If I'd had notice I'd have reverted it my self but on a phone so no acce=
ss
>> to revert it... Once they get a proper usable release we *should* be ok.=
..
>> Though they don't seem to know how to cut releases with Maven... Like wt=
f
>> is the deal with only -SNAPSHOT docs being public!!!

I agree that's wrong, but Creadur is not the only TLP which
regenerates site documentation from trunk.
Some people argue that it's important to publish the latest docs (even
if they apply to code that is not available - I don't subscribe to
that)

In the case of RAT, I don't think there's much difference - if any -
between 0.9 and 0.9-SNAPSHOT docs.

>>
>> On Sunday, 21 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> I just tried to cut a distribution using the existing Maven POM and it =
let
>>> me get through the release:prepare phase without any issues and then fa=
iled
>>> during the release:perform phase. I have no idea how RAT works, or who =
set
>>> it up but that behavior is sub-optimal. Would probably be all right to =
be
>>> on all the time in the validate phase. Certainly preferable to letting =
me
>>> cut a tag and then blowing up while trying to release.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Script timed out
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my phone
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Script timed out
>
>
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org