John Vines 2013-04-09, 21:44
Christopher 2013-04-09, 22:34
John Vines 2013-04-10, 00:05
John Vines 2013-04-10, 17:23
Christopher 2013-04-10, 18:09
John Vines 2013-04-10, 18:20
David Medinets 2013-04-11, 00:53
Christopher 2013-04-11, 02:56
Keith Turner 2013-04-11, 14:38
Christopher 2013-04-11, 16:44
Keith Turner 2013-04-11, 18:01
Fair enough. Okay, so, I'll make a ticket to only run the rat check on
the build server and the release profile, for now.
Christopher L Tubbs II
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can disable it by default... but it's just as easy to simply add
>> -DskipLicenseCheck or to disable it for all your builds by adding the
>> following to your settings.xml file:
>> I understand the argument that it's configured by default for future
>> changes, but it's not exactly true. It's configured by default to be
>> pedantic, because current practices are a bit passive when it comes to
>> these sorts of checks. This is useful for clean checkouts for
>> releases, Jenkins builds, and for developers who don't run out of
>> their workspace (they assemble first). I think the default should be
>> pedantic, and it should take a minimal amount of effort to skip
>> important checks, and that's something that we can immediately start
>> benefiting from.
> I agree that finding issue early is good. If all developers run out
> of their workspace, wouldn't it be more convenient for everyone if it
> were disabled by default in the pom? I think the best counterargument
> you have made for this is that it would be nice if the build server
> would always do this check. So is their an easy way to disable this
> by default and have the build server pass in an option to turn it on?
> This particular change does not really bother me. Its more the
> precedent of changing the current build process to align with needed
> improvements that will be made in the future.
>> I'm still willing to make the change... if it is that much of a
>> nuisance, but I emphatically argue against it for the above reasons.
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Both of those are addressed with the profile that is activated with
>>>> -DskipLicenseCheck, so a dirty workspace will pass the check. The
>>>> focus was on being pedantic for the clean checkout situation.
>>>> We can add exceptions for those things that make a workspace dirty,
>>>> but aren't packaged, for 1.5. However, in the future (>=1.6), I'd like
>>>> to help make it easier to move away from the practice of dirtying the
>>>> source directories to run Accumulo out of one's workspace.
>>>> There is so much to maintain with all the svn:ignore properties set,
>>>> the exceptions in the custom assembly descriptors and RPM/DEB
>>>> profiles... it'd be better to allow running out of the target
>>>> directory (which is already ignored by almost all Maven plugins), and
>>>> use the default settings for packaging plugins wherever possible, than
>>>> to worry about maintaining all these exceptions.
>>>> Running out of the workspace can still be possible (out of the target
>>>> directories, or a dedicated top-level workspace directory whose tree
>>>> we ignore entirely), without all these exceptions to the rule.
>>>> So, with that in mind, I only added exceptions to the apache-rat
>>>> plugin configuration for things whose licenses are described elsewhere
>>>> (js libs), or for things where it misinterprets the file as text
>>>> instead of binary (splits, for testing), so that anything that was
>>>> dirtying the workspace would explicitly be caught. As I said, it can
>>>> be more lenient for 1.5 if you wish, but I think deactivating the
>>>> check with the -DskipLicenseCheck should be sufficient for your needs.
Christopher 2013-04-11, 16:48