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 http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii 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: >> >> <profiles> >> <profile> >> <id>deactivate-license-checks</id> >> <properties> >> <skipLicenseCheck>true</skipLicenseCheck> >> </properties> >> </profile> >> </profiles> >> <activeProfiles> >> <activeProfile>deactivate-license-checks</activeProfile> >> </activeProfiles> >> >> 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 >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> 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. >>> >>> It sounds like the rat check is configured now for changes you plan to >>> make in the future. IMO the poms should be configured for the way >>> developers work now. The changes you mention sound great, when they >>> are made the rat check can be reconfigured. Maybe that means >>> skipLicenseCheck is enabled by default for now, and has to be >>> explicitly disabled? We do not want to put to much time into putting >>> bandaids on something that may fundamentally change, whats the >>> quickest solution to make it work? >>> >>>> >>>> I'm still curious, however, why things would have gotten stuck for >>>> you... getting stuck is very different than failing due to license >>>> checks. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:23 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hmm, fresh checkout everything went fine. However, for sanity's sake I >>>>> went >>>>> ahead and I dropped my configurations into conf and stripped out all of >>>>> the >>>>> apache headers and I got a rat failure, too many unapproved licenses.It >>>>> shouldn't be checking those files since they aren't packaged. >>>>> >>>>> It also appears to be checking my log directory, so that needs to be >>>>> addressed too. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:05 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I had taken out the rat plugin in order to get it to build successfully. >>>>>> I >>>>>> will try your tips tomorrow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. >>>>>> On Apr 9, 2013 6:34 PM, "Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> That message is the from the apache-rat plugin, but the apache-rat >>>>>>> plugin would fail the build at verify phase if there was a problem. It >>>>>>> wouldn't hang. You're going to have to provide more info, as it works >>>>>>> for me. Have you tried with a clean checkout? Does it work with >>>>>>> -DskipLicenseCheck? Does mvn package or mvn verify work? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> > Attempting to do a mvn install of 1.5 and it just hangs with the >>>>>>> > message >>>>>>> > [INFO] No excludes >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > This has something to do with rat, but I don't know what. >>>>>>> >>>>>>
