I think that depends on the type of thing being patched. A patch that
fixes a bug makes sense to go against a previously-released version. A
patch for some new feature does not.
On 6/17/14, 2:38 PM, Christopher wrote:
Personally, I think that contributors should be patching against the last
released version, not master. Early on Josh argued that we should keep the
master HEAD identical to the latest release, and develop in a development
branch. I didn't fully understand his reasonings back then, but if we were
making that decision now, I'd go for that.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote:
This problem is exasperated by our development model. We tell people to
clone our repo, which puts them on master by default. Then we tell them to
work against the oldest branch that has the bug, which is almost always
going to be 1.6 and sometimes even 1.5. After switching branches, they'll
have the extra modules laying around, and unless they know to look for them
are going to get bit by the RAT check. This is something that happens for
almost every single new contributor, and we saw it come up several times
during the hackathon.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't know that this will help much.
We already have a *lot* for new contributors to keep track of. If they
miss
the step of running maven clean, they end up exactly where we are now.
The output from the Rat plugin doesn't make it easy to figure out how
they
got into that state, nor how to back out of it. They're likely at a point
where they can't easily go back to the branch that could do the clean, so
they're back to "add your files and use git clean." Which we already know
isn't going great for people.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Billie Rinaldi <
[email protected]>
wrote:
How about recommending a mvn clean before checking out a new branch?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]>
wrote:
My concern with a default-on profile is the same one I have with
Christopher's suggestion that we recommend -Drat.ignoreErrors=true.
It's going to make the "easy" path one where things aren't checked.
That's
going to necessitate we check things periodically and during release.
We can just as easily do those checks by activating the profile, e.g.
in
a
jenkins build and in the release script.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Billie Rinaldi <
[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm not thrilled about turning it off by default. How about
putting
it
in
a profile that would be enabled by default, but could be disabled
with
a
flag for those who don't understand why it's failing?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]
wrote:
I've had a few different new-to-Accumulo contributors recently
run
into
the
issue of Rat failing the build after changing branches.
I know we already have a warning about this[1], but AFAICT it's
over
the
threshold for consumable information.
Even after pointing people to the warning, the existing
workaround
tripped
up atleast one of them. Despite the warning about using "git
clean,"
the
destruction of their local IDE changes were surprising.
For contributions to Accumulo that aren't coming from committers,
the
Rat
plugin seems much more likely to give a false positive than to
catch
an
error. Additionally, whatever committer is reviewing the
contribution
should be checking for license compliance anyways.
In the interests of reducing the surprise for new contributors,
I'd
like
to
move our use of Rat to a profile that is only default enabled
during
a
release run.
The profile would still let those who want rat to run on every
build
to
enable it and we could update the guide for handling new
contributions
to
say committers should enable the rat profile to help guard
against
errors.
Any objections?
[1]: http://accumulo.apache.org/source.html#running-a-build
--
Sean
--
Sean
--
Sean
